Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Business Journals)   Mass Christian college to Obama Administration: We want an exemption from your proposed law so we can discriminate against hiring gays and lesbians. New England Association of School and College: So, about that accreditation of yours   (bizjournals.com) divider line 253
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

8965 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2014 at 3:25 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



253 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-15 01:12:42 PM  
They should lose their accreditation for even suggesting that they would do this. The college itself has demonstrated a complete lack of higher-level critical and analytic thinking; how can it now be expected to pass on these traits to students?
 
2014-07-15 01:13:43 PM  
"OMG, they are oppressing my free speech!"
 
2014-07-15 01:25:38 PM  

RexTalionis: "OMG, they are oppressing my free speech!"


very close.  needs more derp about the president being a sekrit mooslim imposing shariah law on 'merka.
 
2014-07-15 01:30:15 PM  
He took his 30 pieces of silver, and now he doesn't want the Pharisees telling him what to do?

That's not how it works.
 
2014-07-15 01:34:42 PM  
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

If the law has to be written in a manner to exclude you based on your religion... that's the same damn thing!
 
2014-07-15 01:36:58 PM  
good.  This is the only thing that will shut some of these jesus freaks up.
 
2014-07-15 01:55:42 PM  

netizencain: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

If the law has to be written in a manner to exclude you based on your religion... that's the same damn thing!


Problem is you have to read the back end of that sentence "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "

what gets sticky is what constitutes an "exercise" of a religion?

Is making the Amish participate in Social Security violating their religious belief that any form of insurance is immoral as it indicates a lack of trust in god? (or to make that example more up to date, How will the individual mandate fare against Christian Scientists claiming they have a right NOT to have insurance since they don't believe in modern medicine)

How about a requirement that kids attend school until they are 16 (again Amish and some Mennonites believe that any schooling beyond the 6th grade level is immoral because it will make the person vain and proud of what they know)


What about using a drug in a religious ceremony that the federal government has banned?

Animal sacrifice in contravention of local animal cruelty laws?

Human sacrifice?

Up until recently the Supreme Court had been severely limiting "free exercise" challenges to "laws of general jurisdiction" which is to say a law passed for a general and non-discriminatory purpose that just happened to infringe on a person's religious freedom.  This started in the  Smith case where the court ruled that a guy could be fired for failing a drug test even when he was authentically native American and the drug was taken during a religious ceremony.

In response Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, essentially reversing the Supreme Court and overturning   Smith

Whereupon the court heard   city of Boerne V. Flores in which the SCOTUS eesentially told Congress to blow it out their assholes, and overturn RFRA saying it was the COURT and not Congress who had the power to define what an infringement of religious freedom looked like, and since the court had already said in Smith that Free exercise had not been violated, Congress had no intrinsic power under the 14th amendment to pass RFRA

Boerne SHOULD have been controlling in the   Hobby Lobby case but wasn't so where we are now is anybody's guess
 
2014-07-15 01:57:39 PM  
Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?
 
2014-07-15 02:03:19 PM  
My brother went a similar route in law school. The farking law school library (of all places) was not accessible to wheelchairs. He didn't want to sue them, only for them to correct the problem. Their attempt at reasonable accommodation was to have library staff run in and out to get him the books he needed, instead of spending money for the upgrades. They figured he'd graduate before the lawsuit could be completed and he'd lose interest. Several professors even offered to represent him but he felt they were just looking to fark over the dean to settle old scores rather than actually sincere about accessibility. So he saw an announcement about visitors to the University from the American Bar association and sent a nice note to the Dean explaining that he wasn't going to waste his time suing the university, when it was easier to tell the ABA what they were doing. If they lost their accreditation it would harm him because he'd have to switch schools... but it would hurt the school a lot more. Magically, the money to add a ramp and replace the elevator that was always broken appeared.
 
2014-07-15 03:29:07 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: He took his 30 pieces of silver, and now he doesn't want the Pharisees telling him what to do?

That's not how it works.


Niiiiice.
 
2014-07-15 03:30:07 PM  
The important thing to remember is that gay marriage doesn't affect you...... as long you don't run a bakery.....or a school.
 
2014-07-15 03:30:15 PM  

serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?


Nope. They should take all relevant factors into account and discriminatory hiring policies are very much relevant.
 
2014-07-15 03:30:21 PM  

obamadidcoke: serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

well if this is the lesson that they are teaching...


The golden rule (he with gold makes the rules) is a damned good lesson to learn early on.
 
2014-07-15 03:31:05 PM  
This can't be true. I was informed that the HL decision would never, ever, under any circumstances, be cited in an attempt to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
 
2014-07-15 03:31:14 PM  

serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?


No.  Accreditation blackmail for non-academic reasons is okay if it's for currently popular social causes.
 
2014-07-15 03:33:55 PM  
Right..which is why there is a big fight right now in DC about whether the regional accreditation bodies should even exist. Several proposals have been floated: one to move accreditation to the federal education department and one to move it to state departments of higher education. The proposal to move it to the states has the stronger support but it has been delayed. In any event, independent accreditation is basically a dodo right now--it's gong to die the only question is where is it going to go.
 
2014-07-15 03:33:59 PM  
Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.
 
2014-07-15 03:34:28 PM  

serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?


Education - even at the higher levels - involves some measure of socialization. You're going to meet people of every other stripe, and you're going to have to learn how to do that as well as whatever the subject matter involves.

At work, you won't be able to get Gary fired because he doesn't go to church. You won't be able to get Steinberg fired for refusing to take off his hat. You won't be able to get Lizzie the Lezzie fired for her short hair or flannel shirts (only in some states). You won't be able to get Nancy fired for her mark of Cain.

If a state accreditation board has any sense, they'll decide that social engineering (to borrow a conservative buzzword), to the point where you refuse to admit even a single student from the specified group, is a bad thing educationally speaking.

The kids'll get over it.

// or the college will skip "heathen" accreditation altogether to pay off whoever gives Liberty theirs
 
2014-07-15 03:35:02 PM  
I think the question we should be asking is if a gay and/or lesbian individual would have been considering putting an application into a Christian college for anything other than masochistic reasons.
 
2014-07-15 03:36:31 PM  

Cyclometh: serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Nope. They should take all relevant factors into account and discriminatory hiring policies are very much relevant.


This. The only concern anyone should have in hiring is "can this person do the job reliably and well?" What consenting adults do on their own time isn't anyone else's business, even if they talk about it at work.
 
2014-07-15 03:37:12 PM  
Do I understand this correctly? They want to be able to discriminate based on orientation but still receive federal funding?
 
2014-07-15 03:37:13 PM  

Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.


If discriminating against gays is essential to your religion, what does that say about your religion?
 
2014-07-15 03:37:55 PM  
Is accreditation all that important? The high school I went to, a private Catholic institution, wasn't accredited. It was lacking "related art" classes (art & music classes). Didn't stop the vast majority of us from going on to college....
 
2014-07-15 03:38:13 PM  

Magorn: Boerne SHOULD have been controlling in the Hobby Lobby case but wasn't so where we are now is anybody's guess


The backside of another dune.  Who knows what is on the other side.
 
2014-07-15 03:38:56 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

If discriminating against gays is essential to your religion, what does that say about your religion?


Everything.
 
2014-07-15 03:40:56 PM  
Let's see who's laughing when Islamic based organizations ask the same thing. I'm sure Subby and the Farkers want to deliver ObamaCare's demands ..
 
2014-07-15 03:41:09 PM  

kbronsito: My brother went a similar route in law school. The farking law school library (of all places) was not accessible to wheelchairs. He didn't want to sue them, only for them to correct the problem. Their attempt at reasonable accommodation was to have library staff run in and out to get him the books he needed, instead of spending money for the upgrades. They figured he'd graduate before the lawsuit could be completed and he'd lose interest. Several professors even offered to represent him but he felt they were just looking to fark over the dean to settle old scores rather than actually sincere about accessibility. So he saw an announcement about visitors to the University from the American Bar association and sent a nice note to the Dean explaining that he wasn't going to waste his time suing the university, when it was easier to tell the ABA what they were doing. If they lost their accreditation it would harm him because he'd have to switch schools... but it would hurt the school a lot more. Magically, the money to add a ramp and replace the elevator that was always broken appeared.


Good on him. Sometimes, when honey doesn't work, a dash of vinegar in your opponent's mouth does, in fact, cause him to stop grinning in denial.
 
2014-07-15 03:42:07 PM  
How can you fix 'em if you don't let 'em in?


[youeffindolts.jpg]
 
2014-07-15 03:43:47 PM  

Dr Dreidel: serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Education - even at the higher levels - involves some measure of socialization. You're going to meet people of every other stripe, and you're going to have to learn how to do that as well as whatever the subject matter involves.

At work, you won't be able to get Gary fired because he doesn't go to church. You won't be able to get Steinberg fired for refusing to take off his hat. You won't be able to get Lizzie the Lezzie fired for her short hair or flannel shirts (only in some states). You won't be able to get Nancy fired for her mark of Cain.

If a state accreditation board has any sense, they'll decide that social engineering (to borrow a conservative buzzword), to the point where you refuse to admit even a single student from the specified group, is a bad thing educationally speaking.

The kids'll get over it.

// or the college will skip "heathen" accreditation altogether to pay off whoever gives Liberty Bob Jones University theirs


FTFY
Liberty is actually a regionally accredited (SCACS) university.  Bob Jones are the people that give you a piece of paper that has the same value as a used Wendy's napkin.
 
2014-07-15 03:44:58 PM  
FTFA: "...the issues are complicated "

i.imgur.com
 
2014-07-15 03:45:04 PM  

Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.


There's a lot of other sins that I bet they aren't worrying about in their hiring decisions.

Do all their employees keep the Sabbath holy, honour their parents, reject wearing clothing of differing fabrics, and stop people with eye defects from going to church?
 
2014-07-15 03:49:02 PM  
hulshofschmidt.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-07-15 03:51:46 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: He took his 30 pieces of silver, and now he doesn't want the Pharisees telling him what to do?

That's not how it works.


moviecitynews.com

/This is why I love FARK
 
2014-07-15 03:52:06 PM  

rjakobi: I think the question we should be asking is if a gay and/or lesbian individual would have been considering putting an application into a Christian college for anything other than masochistic reasons.


You do realize there are GLBT christians and teaching jobs aren't plentiful.
 
2014-07-15 03:53:36 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

If discriminating against gays is essential to your religion, what does that say about your religion?


If you assume humanity has always had homosexuality as part of it's fabric why do you think it was forbidden in the first place?
 
2014-07-15 03:54:34 PM  
Wife went to college near there.  Gordon kids used to come to athletic events at wife's college to tell everyone they were going to hell. Good times.  I also work with people who went there, and once (while discussion how to teach the age of the universe with one of our other science guys, since that's the type of stuff we do) offended one of them by joking about the devil burring dinosaur bones to fool us.  So aside from the general issue of them being homophobes, I'm also rooting against them for personal reasons.

Best thing an accreditation organization could do is stop pretending a place of ignorance and hate is actually a place of higher learning.
 
2014-07-15 03:55:22 PM  
The bible has VERY little to say about homosexuality. It has far more to say about pre-marital heterosexual activity.

I'd argue that if Christian colleges don't want to hire homosexuals, then they should not hire unmarried non-virgins either.

The bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin. It also teaches that everyone is a sinner. So why make a special case against teh gheys?
 
2014-07-15 03:56:03 PM  

Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.


No they aren't.

If they were standing up for the beliefs they're allegedly supposed to divine from Leviticus, then they wouldn't be hiring or admitting anyone who:

* Trims his beard
* Eats shellfish
* Eats blood (yes, even in a rare steak)
* Burns honey
* Touches unclean animals
* Has messy hair
* Tears their clothes
* Drinks alcohol in holy places
* Eats pork or rabbit
* Eats owl, bat, crow, raven, hawk, or kite.
* Goes to church within 33 days of giving birth to a boy
* Goes to church within 66 days of giving birth to a girl
* Has sex with someone during her menstrual cycle
* Reaps the very edges of a field
* Lies
* Steals
* Picks up grapes that have fallen to the ground
* Commits fraud against other people
* Bears a grudge
* Mixes fabrics in their clothing
* Cross-breeds animals
* Plants different seeds in the same field
* Eating the fruit of a tree within four years of planting it
* Reads their horoscope
* Uses a Magic 8-ball
* Cuts their hair at the sides
* Gets tattoos
* Mistreats foreigners
* Marries a widow or divorcee IF they seek to enter the clergy
* Works on Sunday
* Sells land permanently
* Doesn't stand in the presence of the elderly

Yet somehow, the only one of these rules from Leviticus that the Christian assholes get their panties in a twist about is the one about not laying with another man. It doesn't even mention lesbianism, specifically, and the line about laying with another man is mixed in with all the above garbage in Old Testament B.S. rules about what is and is not an "abomination".

If they're going to press one of those rules and say it's "fundamental to their faith" then they can't be picking and choosing from Leviticus-- the WHOLE THING has to be fundamental to their faith, and they just do not act like it is... It's only the parts they personally deem "icky" that causes them to embrace their hatred and wave it like a flag.
 
2014-07-15 03:56:56 PM  

with great power comes great insanity: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

There's a lot of other sins that I bet they aren't worrying about in their hiring decisions.

Do all their employees keep the Sabbath holy, honour their parents, reject wearing clothing of differing fabrics, and stop people with eye defects from going to church?


You were quicker. I was more thorough. Still, the point stands: They're picking and choosing.
 
2014-07-15 03:57:14 PM  
FTFA:   executive order barring organizations that take federal money from discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation.

I think I found the solution.

Homosexuality clearly violates their religious beliefs.  Thus they should not be forced to hire them as a matter of law.  But if it's only a condition of accepting tax dollars they have a way to apply their religious beliefs free of government mandate.  Don't take the tax dollars.
 
2014-07-15 03:57:53 PM  

APO_Buddha: FTFY
Liberty is actually a regionally accredited (SCACS) university. Bob Jones are the people that give you a piece of paper that has the same value as a used Wendy's napkin.


Not for nothing, but SCACS is the "RANDPAUL License" of accreditation - The South Carolina Association of Christian Schools.

So while you're technically correct, it's not like a credential issued by Liberty is much better. if you're part of the crowd, the name of the institution matters more than any accreditation. If you're not hip to the jive, Liberty might as well have Klingon accreditation.

// last month, I learned Liberty U is not too far from Floyd, VA (hippieville)
 
2014-07-15 03:58:20 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: Let's see who's laughing when Islamic based organizations ask the same thing. I'm sure Subby and the Farkers want to deliver ObamaCare's demands ..

media.giphy.com

 
2014-07-15 03:59:47 PM  

TheOtherMisterP: The bible has VERY little to say about homosexuality. It has far more to say about pre-marital heterosexual activity.

I'd argue that if Christian colleges don't want to hire homosexuals, then they should not hire unmarried non-virgins either.

The bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin. It also teaches that everyone is a sinner. So why make a special case against teh gheys?


Because, quite honestly, they are hung up on gay sex. They either think it's "icky" or they want it. They're sick in the head when it comes to their sexual upbringing. They seem to have to impose their sexual desires and fears on everyone else. It's twisted.
 
2014-07-15 04:00:02 PM  

Gunny Highway: Magorn: Boerne SHOULD have been controlling in the Hobby Lobby case but wasn't so where we are now is anybody's guess

The backside of another dune.  Who knows what is on the other side.


img.tfd.com

Sandworms. Lots and lots of sandworms. Wormsign even the likes of which even God has never seen.
 
2014-07-15 04:01:21 PM  

Nix Nightbird: * Picks up grapes that have fallen to the ground


No five second rule!
 
2014-07-15 04:02:11 PM  
"on behalf of private religious institutions like Gordon,"

Do anything you want as a PRIVATE institution.  Therefore, you get no PUBLIC monies.

so piss off and EABOD then DIAF
 
2014-07-15 04:03:04 PM  

kbronsito: Nix Nightbird: * Picks up grapes that have fallen to the ground

No five second rule!


Well, more specifically it's grapes that have fallen to the ground in your vineyard, but the way they branch out to lesbianism with the "lay with another man" thing, I think we can branch out the grape thing to include any grapes that touch any ground, anywhere.
 
2014-07-15 04:03:09 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: Gunny Highway: Magorn: Boerne SHOULD have been controlling in the Hobby Lobby case but wasn't so where we are now is anybody's guess

The backside of another dune.  Who knows what is on the other side.

[img.tfd.com image 600x338]

Sandworms. Lots and lots of sandworms. Wormsign even the likes of which even God has never seen.


Nothing brings the nation together like a common enemy!
 
2014-07-15 04:04:13 PM  

rjakobi: I think the question we should be asking is if a gay and/or lesbian individual would have been considering putting an application into a Christian college for anything other than masochistic reasons.


Not all Christians hate gays. Half the homosexuals I know are Christian. Hell, not all of them are even liberal Christians. I am from Texas, so the general population is more religious and conservative, of course.
 
2014-07-15 04:04:30 PM  

WanPhat: serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

No.  Accreditation blackmail for non-academic reasons is okay if it's for currently popular social causes.


So you'd be totally okay with say Bob Jones Universality being fully accredited, even though they forbid interracial dating, for example, just so long as they have a good English department?


Seems to me the accreditation process is essentially the issuing body's imprimatur, on the degrees issued by the receiving body,   the acredditors saying they have examined the quality of the educational experience imparted by the school and you can trust them that the degree holder is ready and able to work in their field for which they hold a degree.  If those social environment in which the degree is issued is too warped this may not be true.

This has become a pretty big Issue for Patrick Henry College(aka "Harvard for the Homeschooled", just up the road from me.   Their education  is top notch as long as it is not biology (young earth creationists ya see)    and they focus on things like political science, so during the bush years they placed as many interns at the White House as the real Harvard, and Their graduates were prized as staffers for GOP congressman because of their "ideological purity"

The problem was these young men (it was almost invariably men)  came from an environment where women were expected to work only until they got married (and or paid off student loans), where men were expected to rebuke women for things like "immodest dress" or otherwise "Stumbling" the men (causing them to think sinful things) and men wer expected to take the lead in most discussions or conferences.


You can imagine that went over like a wet fart in crowded elevator when these people got onto the hill and had to try to make nice with lobbyists , other staffers, even female members of Congress from their own party
 
2014-07-15 04:04:42 PM  

genner: The important thing to remember is that gay marriage doesn't affect you...... as long you don't run a bakery.....or a school.


And it doesn't affect you then either.  Unless you're an asshole who wants to force their beliefs down others' throats and up their vaginas.
 
2014-07-15 04:07:03 PM  

Nix Nightbird: TheOtherMisterP: The bible has VERY little to say about homosexuality. It has far more to say about pre-marital heterosexual activity.

I'd argue that if Christian colleges don't want to hire homosexuals, then they should not hire unmarried non-virgins either.

The bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin. It also teaches that everyone is a sinner. So why make a special case against teh gheys?

Because, quite honestly, they are hung up on gay sex. They either think it's "icky" or they want it. They're sick in the head when it comes to their sexual upbringing. They seem to have to impose their sexual desires and fears on everyone else. It's twisted.


No, it's the unrepentant part of it.  If you are living as an open homosexual or continue to engage in the behavior you're an unrepentant sinner.  An alcoholic who continues to drink is an unrepentant sinner as well.  While a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks is a repentant sinner.  Therefore a homosexual who renounces homosexuality and no longer engages in the behavior would be a repentant sinner.

You can replace homosexuality or alcoholism with just about any sin.  The line is drawn at whether or not you are actively engaging in that sin without any intention of stopping or remorse.
 
2014-07-15 04:07:06 PM  

Callous: FTFA:   executive order barring organizations that take federal money from discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation.

I think I found the solution.

Homosexuality clearly violates their religious beliefs.  Thus they should not be forced to hire them as a matter of law.  But if it's only a condition of accepting tax dollars they have a way to apply their religious beliefs free of government mandate.  Don't take the tax dollars.


Except that's not what's happening. Accreditation isn't just about money.
 
2014-07-15 04:08:10 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: good.  This is the only thing that will shut some of these jesus freaks up.



No it won't. They'll just go on without accreditation.
 
2014-07-15 04:08:11 PM  

Nix Nightbird: * Burns honey


You know there's a lot of stuff I can tolerate but burning honey is going too far.

/wut
 
2014-07-15 04:08:44 PM  

Callous: FTFA:   executive order barring organizations that take federal money from discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation.

I think I found the solution.

Homosexuality clearly violates their religious beliefs.  Thus they should not be forced to hire them as a matter of law.  But if it's only a condition of accepting tax dollars they have a way to apply their religious beliefs free of government mandate.  Don't take the tax dollars.


But what about the endowment?

/that's what she said
 
2014-07-15 04:08:53 PM  

qorkfiend: This can't be true. I was informed that the HL decision would never, ever, under any circumstances, be cited in an attempt to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


It still isnt. All HL didwas state the executive had to follow a congressionally passed law. It was a statutory case. There are still 3 steps to be met to allow the college to discriminate. HL changed no laws. None. Zero. It just told the administration to follow it.

Sorry you remain ignorant to reality.
 
2014-07-15 04:10:06 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: genner: The important thing to remember is that gay marriage doesn't affect you...... as long you don't run a bakery.....or a school.

And it doesn't affect you then either.  Unless you're an asshole who wants to force their beliefs down others' throats and up their vaginas.


Aaaand I've found a new name for my penis.
 
2014-07-15 04:10:13 PM  

Lordserb: Meh MALE homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for cherry-picking their beliefs.


FTFY.
 
2014-07-15 04:10:25 PM  

DubtodaIll: Dusk-You-n-Me: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

If discriminating against gays is essential to your religion, what does that say about your religion?

If you assume humanity has always had homosexuality as part of it's fabric why do you think it was forbidden in the first place?


because what was forbidden is something VERY different than what we define as "homosexuality".   For example Homosexuality in Roman culture, especially after Augustine's reforms was severely sanction by the state.  But the term they used did not define a man farking another man.  THAT  they were totally okay with.   The problem was when you had an EXCLUSIVE romantic relationship with a man of basically equal social status.   And the reason they had a problem wih that was simply because it made it less likely that you would do your duty to the state and pop out a few kids.    Once you had done that and they survived to adulthood, roman law didn;t really give a fark who you farked or how
 
2014-07-15 04:10:45 PM  
FTFA: "It does not represent a policy for Gordon. It represents support for the larger underlying issue," the college spokescritter said.

So... in addition to being homophobic bigots, they're Liars for Jesustm
 
2014-07-15 04:11:11 PM  

netizencain: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion


Establishment means they can't start their own religion. It does not mean they can't enforce someone else's religion. All it means is that you are free to choose how to worship Jesus Christ, whether you are a Catholic, Protestant or Evangelical.
 
2014-07-15 04:12:51 PM  

rjakobi: I think the question we should be asking is if a gay and/or lesbian individual would have been considering putting an application into a Christian college for anything other than masochistic reasons.


This is a hiring decision, not an academic one.

While I agree that students shouldn't attend religious schools, but it's pretty hard to work in education and Massachusetts and not work for a school that has a religious background.
 
2014-07-15 04:14:00 PM  

with great power comes great insanity: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

There's a lot of other sins that I bet they aren't worrying about in their hiring decisions.

Do all their employees keep the Sabbath holy, honour their parents, reject wearing clothing of differing fabrics, and stop people with eye defects from going to church?


I just looked, and they do, in fact, require a statement about students being Christian in addition to the usual statement about academic fitness. So they do, in fact check if you go to church on Sundays, among other things.

And if you think that's a bit much, you should see what it takes to apply for a faculty position. A friend of mine was asked to sign that she has a whole host of very conservative Christian beliefs for one place. Including, oddly, that women are to be subservient to their husbands. I'm not really clear why they bothered to accept applications from women at all. I encouraged her to sign it, since it explicitly said I'm going to Hell. She didn't finish that application.
 
2014-07-15 04:15:11 PM  

Copper Spork: netizencain: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Establishment means they can't start their own religion. It does not mean they can't enforce someone else's religion. All it means is that you are free to choose how to worship Jesus Christ, whether you are a Catholic, Protestant or Evangelical.


I really wish there weren't so many people eagerly and genuinely dishing up this Poeslaw.
 
2014-07-15 04:15:18 PM  

TheOtherMisterP: The bible has VERY little to say about homosexuality. It has far more to say about pre-marital heterosexual activity.

I'd argue that if Christian colleges don't want to hire homosexuals, then they should not hire unmarried non-virgins either.

The bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin. It also teaches that everyone is a sinner. So why make a special case against teh gheys?


Because Jesus was totally clear when he said "that which you do to the least of you, you do to me...except for the gays.  Do unto them all you want.  Seriously, I hate the queers.  Why do I hang out with 12 dudes?  Um..."
 
2014-07-15 04:17:21 PM  

SilentStrider: Grand_Moff_Joseph: good.  This is the only thing that will shut some of these jesus freaks up.


No it won't. They'll just go on without accreditation.


and if employers were smart, they'd refuse to hire individuals from unaccredited "universities", since they can't be 100% sure that they received an adequate education.
 
2014-07-15 04:19:40 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.


But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.
 
2014-07-15 04:21:41 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: with great power comes great insanity: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

There's a lot of other sins that I bet they aren't worrying about in their hiring decisions.

Do all their employees keep the Sabbath holy, honour their parents, reject wearing clothing of differing fabrics, and stop people with eye defects from going to church?

I just looked, and they do, in fact, require a statement about students being Christian in addition to the usual statement about academic fitness. So they do, in fact check if you go to church on Sundays, among other things.

And if you think that's a bit much, you should see what it takes to apply for a faculty position. A friend of mine was asked to sign that she has a whole host of very conservative Christian beliefs for one place. Including, oddly, that women are to be subservient to their husbands. I'm not really clear why they bothered to accept applications from women at all. I encouraged her to sign it, since it explicitly said I'm going to Hell. She didn't finish that application.


Sorry, I should have emphasized in the first paragraph that that's for potential students.
 
2014-07-15 04:22:57 PM  

Magorn: what gets sticky is what constitutes an "exercise" of a religion?

Is making the Amish participate in Social Security violating their religious belief that any form of insurance is immoral as it indicates a lack of trust in god? (or to make that example more up to date, How will the individual mandate fare against Christian Scientists claiming they have a right NOT to have insurance since they don't believe in modern medicine)


You have to pay for crap you don't like, just as I have to pay for wars I was opposed to.  If you want to refuse to go to the hospital when you get sick, you can, so long as you're an adult.


Magorn:How about a requirement that kids attend school until they are 16 (again Amish and some Mennonites believe that any schooling beyond the 6th grade level is immoral because it will make the person vain and proud of what they know)

Yep.  A democracy needs educated voters, and you don't have a right to deny your kids an education.


MagornWhat about using a drug in a religious ceremony that the federal government has banned?

Nope - but maybe the dug shouldn't be banned in the first place.  Possibly an exception could be made for natives or aboriginals that were doing that before European colonists took over, but that's not really a religious issue, that's more an "acknowledging that they sorta/kinda get to be their own nation with their own laws" thing.


MagornAnimal sacrifice in contravention of local animal cruelty laws?

Nope.  Use a stuffed animal or something.  Maybe you can "transubstantiate" it into a real, alive animal just before you kill it.


Magorn: Human sacrifice?

Fine I guess, so long as the sacrifice is a consenting adult volunteer.  Though, again, a RealDoll should be sufficient.  Transubstantiate that rascal.

/Funny, you call these questions "sticky," but they seemed pretty damn easy to me.
 
2014-07-15 04:23:21 PM  

mootmah: Callous: FTFA:   executive order barring organizations that take federal money from discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation.

I think I found the solution.

Homosexuality clearly violates their religious beliefs.  Thus they should not be forced to hire them as a matter of law.  But if it's only a condition of accepting tax dollars they have a way to apply their religious beliefs free of government mandate.  Don't take the tax dollars.

But what about the endowment?

/that's what she said


If the endowment money comes from tax dollars then it's subject to the rules the government applies to it.

If you don't want to follow those rules don't accept the money.   It's not farking rocket surgery.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: SilentStrider: Grand_Moff_Joseph: good.  This is the only thing that will shut some of these jesus freaks up.


No it won't. They'll just go on without accreditation.

and if employers were smart, they'd refuse to hire individuals from unaccredited "universities", since they can't be 100% sure that they received an adequate education.


Accreditation should be based solely on curriculum and not religious practices as I think that the 1A would explicitly preclude that.
 
2014-07-15 04:25:17 PM  

Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.


So is eating shrimp. Yet i know a ton of catholics eating those tasty lil bastards every friday during lent.
 
2014-07-15 04:26:33 PM  

eagles95: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

So is eating shrimp. Yet i know a ton of catholics eating those tasty lil bastards every friday during lent.


You need to reread the New Testament.
 
2014-07-15 04:27:47 PM  

serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?


Funny thing is, if you want to be accredited, there's a list of rules you have to agree to follow.  Let's take a look at rule 11.5, shall we?

11.5  The institution adheres to non-discriminatory policies and practices in recruitment, admissions, employment, evaluation, disciplinary action, and advancement. It fosters an atmosphere within the institutional community that respects and supports people of diverse characteristics and backgrounds.
 
2014-07-15 04:28:56 PM  

serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?


Lol no.

Its a checklist to see if you meet accreditation. Promise not to discriminate? OOooooo missed that box.
 
2014-07-15 04:29:01 PM  

Callous: eagles95: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

So is eating shrimp. Yet i know a ton of catholics eating those tasty lil bastards every friday during lent.

You need to reread the New Testament.



Also Christian != Catholic

Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholic.  Catholics have many, many practices that make no sense to other Christian sects.
 
2014-07-15 04:29:10 PM  

genner: The important thing to remember is that gay marriage doesn't affect you...... as long you don't run a bakery.....or a school. aren't a bigoted asshole who tries to treat other human beings like crap.



FTFY.
 
2014-07-15 04:29:41 PM  

rjakobi: I think the question we should be asking is if a gay and/or lesbian individual would have been considering putting an application into a Christian college for anything other than masochistic reasons.


*shrug* I'm straight (but vaguely agnostic/atheist), and majored in music at a Methodist college because it had an excellent music program.

/Pretty sure one of my roommates came out of the closet after graduating...
 
2014-07-15 04:30:47 PM  

Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to my interpretation of the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.


FTFY.
 
2014-07-15 04:31:50 PM  

ciberido: serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Funny thing is, if you want to be accredited, there's a list of rules you have to agree to follow.  Let's take a look at rule 11.5, shall we?

11.5  The institution adheres to non-discriminatory policies and practices in recruitment, admissions, employment, evaluation, disciplinary action, and advancement. It fosters an atmosphere within the institutional community that respects and supports people of diverse characteristics and backgrounds.


So they can't refuse to hire someone who fails a drug test or has a criminal record?  Oh they can because it's accepted that crime and drug use are wrong behaviors.  To a Christian homosexuality is wrong.
 
2014-07-15 04:34:18 PM  

Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.


Very well, not all Christians believe that being gay is a sin (worse than any other that people do all the time at least). And then the rest of what I said.

The ones I've met who bother mentioning that being gay is a sin, they certainly talk like they hate them. Mind you, this is family I'm talking about here, and I'l bet that they don't talk the same around strangers. Made our wedding reception awkward when the worst of that crowd ended up sitting right next to my lesbian aunt and her wife.

Your experience obviously varies.
 
2014-07-15 04:35:25 PM  
Callous:
And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

Hate may be too strong of a word for many people. On the other hand I call bullshiat on most of the anti-gay Christians who claim to love gay people. They love to spout "hate the sin, love the sinner", but in many Christians' attitudes toward and treatment of gay people, I don't see anything resembling love. Actions count a hell of a lot more than words. Besides, who can love someone without accepting them? Who we choose to love is an integral part of who we are as a person. If we can't accept that aspect of someone's life, then I think it's bullshiat to claim we love them.
 
2014-07-15 04:36:24 PM  

ciberido: Magorn: what gets sticky is what constitutes an "exercise" of a religion?

Is making the Amish participate in Social Security violating their religious belief that any form of insurance is immoral as it indicates a lack of trust in god? (or to make that example more up to date, How will the individual mandate fare against Christian Scientists claiming they have a right NOT to have insurance since they don't believe in modern medicine)

You have to pay for crap you don't like, just as I have to pay for wars I was opposed to.  If you want to refuse to go to the hospital when you get sick, you can, so long as you're an adult.


Magorn:How about a requirement that kids attend school until they are 16 (again Amish and some Mennonites believe that any schooling beyond the 6th grade level is immoral because it will make the person vain and proud of what they know)

Yep.  A democracy needs educated voters, and you don't have a right to deny your kids an education.


Magorn:  What about using a drug in a religious ceremony that the federal government has banned?

Nope - but maybe the dug shouldn't be banned in the first place.  Possibly an exception could be made for natives or aboriginals that were doing that before European colonists took over, but that's not really a religious issue, that's more an "acknowledging that they sorta/kinda get to be their own nation with their own laws" thing.


Magorn:  Animal sacrifice in contravention of local animal cruelty laws?

Nope.  Use a stuffed animal or something.  Maybe you can "transubstantiate" it into a real, alive animal just before you kill it.


Magorn: Human sacrifice?

Fine I guess, so long as the sacrifice is a consenting adult volunteer.  Though, again, a RealDoll should be sufficient.  Transubstantiate that rascal.

/Funny, you call these questions "sticky," but they seemed pretty damn easy to me.


Well of that list:

Amish do get and exception to Education requirements
(Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 us 205)   but not paying social security for their employees (
United States v. Lee (1982)(though they do not have to participate themselves)

The peyote case is Smith dicussed above, and the animal sacrifice  issue came up in theChurch of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
\
which came after smith but went 9-0 for the Santeria chicken killers
 
2014-07-15 04:36:54 PM  

Magorn: DubtodaIll: Dusk-You-n-Me: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

If discriminating against gays is essential to your religion, what does that say about your religion?

If you assume humanity has always had homosexuality as part of it's fabric why do you think it was forbidden in the first place?

because what was forbidden is something VERY different than what we define as "homosexuality".   For example Homosexuality in Roman culture, especially after Augustine's reforms was severely sanction by the state.  But the term they used did not define a man farking another man.  THAT  they were totally okay with.   The problem was when you had an EXCLUSIVE romantic relationship with a man of basically equal social status.   And the reason they had a problem wih that was simply because it made it less likely that you would do your duty to the state and pop out a few kids.    Once you had done that and they survived to adulthood, roman law didn;t really give a fark who you farked or how


Not to mention that it wasn't always forbidden. The Greeks believed that the love between men is greater than any love between a man and a woman and society was based around the Eromenos-Eroastes relationship - where a young man finds an older and established man as a mentor who would introduce him into society.
 
2014-07-15 04:38:06 PM  

Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.


They are not.  The Bible also tells us that the Dean and all of the College's administrators are sinners.  But it doesn't keep them from paying themselves.
 
2014-07-15 04:40:16 PM  

patrick767: Callous:
And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

Hate may be too strong of a word for many people. On the other hand I call bullshiat on most of the anti-gay Christians who claim to love gay people. They love to spout "hate the sin, love the sinner", but in many Christians' attitudes toward and treatment of gay people, I don't see anything resembling love. Actions count a hell of a lot more than words. Besides, who can love someone without accepting them? Who we choose to love is an integral part of who we are as a person. If we can't accept that aspect of someone's life, then I think it's bullshiat to claim we love them.


Do you hate alcoholics?  How about drug addicts?  Any of your friends or relatives have a criminal record?

You can object to the behavior and not hate the person.  Love doesn't require accepting everything about someone.  Why is it so black or white with you?
 
2014-07-15 04:40:29 PM  

ciberido: /Funny, you call these questions "sticky," but they seemed pretty damn easy to me.


Every question is easy if you just call it easy and say yes or no.
 
2014-07-15 04:42:09 PM  

Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.



if we're gonna play that card, then we have to play the what-about-all-the-other-stuff-the-old-testament-calls-a-sin card.

to be consistent, if homosexuality is a no go, they need to also not hire anybody who:
wears mixed blended fibers
trims their beard
works on the sabbath
eats swine

you see where I'm going with this. Either you respect ALL the laws of the bible w/o interpretation or you admit that secular modern life trumps the more antiquated rules & it should be treated as a living document w/ the overall thought of "don't be a dick" being the prevailing message.
 
2014-07-15 04:44:00 PM  

Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.


media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com
Au contraire
 
2014-07-15 04:45:11 PM  

DubtodaIll: Dusk-You-n-Me: If discriminating against gays is essential to your religion, what does that say about your religion?

If you assume humanity has always had homosexuality as part of it's fabric why do you think it was forbidden in the first place?


First off, unlike some religious extremists, I prefer to let science explore and endeavor to reveal how and when things came to be rather than ASSUME that the just-so stories my distant ancestors told around their campfires explain things.

Second, to answer your question, I rather believe (to the extent it's as you say) it's for the same reason why it was forbidden to treat people with odd skin tones like equal human begins.  Fearing and disliking the other seems to be one of those things which we "assume" has always been part of humanity's fabric, as you call it.  It is to our shame that many religions codified these prejudices into divine edicts.

Third, homosexuality wasn't really forbidden by religion (not Christianity and certainly not all religions) "in the first place."  Homosexuality predates Christianity and probably all religions practiced today.  Most likely it predates humanity itself.  Nor did every religion which now condemns it always do so.  Specifically, Christianity did not always prohibit homosexuality.  That is, to put it broadly, a myth that is propagated party through ignorance and also because it is very embarrassing to admit that your religion has not always been as it is now.
 
2014-07-15 04:48:28 PM  

Ed's Wood: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.


if we're gonna play that card, then we have to play the what-about-all-the-other-stuff-the-old-testament-calls-a-sin card.

to be consistent, if homosexuality is a no go, they need to also not hire anybody who:
wears mixed blended fibers
trims their beard
works on the sabbath
eats swine

you see where I'm going with this. Either you respect ALL the laws of the bible w/o interpretation or you admit that secular modern life trumps the more antiquated rules & it should be treated as a living document w/ the overall thought of "don't be a dick" being the prevailing message.


Yes, you're demonstrating how you are stuck in the Old Testament and don't understand the difference between Christians and Jews.

Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules.  Homosexuality isn't one of them though.  Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did.  That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.
 
2014-07-15 04:49:31 PM  

Bawdy George: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 236x460]
Au contraire


Thank you for demonstrating my point.
 
2014-07-15 04:50:47 PM  

Nix Nightbird: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

No they aren't.

If they were standing up for the beliefs they're allegedly supposed to divine from Leviticus, then they wouldn't be hiring or admitting anyone who:

* Trims his beard
* Eats shellfish
* Eats blood (yes, even in a rare steak)


That liquid that comes from a rare steak is not blood.  It's myoglobin.  Of course, since this is religion you're talking about, you can always say "well, it COUNTS as blood" the same way electricity counts as fire for some Jews.

And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go have some nice blood sausage, because fark Leviticus.
 
2014-07-15 04:52:35 PM  
Why do people hate freedom of association so much and insist on forcing their beliefs on those that just wish to be left alone?
 
2014-07-15 04:52:42 PM  
Clemkadidlefark: Let's see who's laughing when Islamic based organizations ask the same thing. I'm sure Subby and the Farkers want to deliver ObamaCare's demands ..

You're probably right, so go ahead and hold your breath until it happens.  That way, when the time comes, you can laugh louder.
 
2014-07-15 04:56:11 PM  
There are two separate issues here:  The government withholding federal money from colleges that fail to follow certain rules, and the regional accreditation board pulling their academic accreditation.  If they lose their regional accreditation, there are religious accreditation organizations that could accredit Gordon college to the satisfaction of other religious nuts, though other universities (think: students applying for graduate school elsewhere) and employers may not consider them a "real" college anymore.
 
2014-07-15 04:57:16 PM  

Nix Nightbird: TheOtherMisterP: The bible has VERY little to say about homosexuality. It has far more to say about pre-marital heterosexual activity.

I'd argue that if Christian colleges don't want to hire homosexuals, then they should not hire unmarried non-virgins either.

The bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin. It also teaches that everyone is a sinner. So why make a special case against teh gheys?

Because, quite honestly, they are hung up on gay sex. They either think it's "icky" or they want it.


[whynotboth.jpg]

{note: the following is directed towards the fundie homophobes, not Nix:}

Personally, I prefer sex of the non-icky kind, but whatever rocks your world, Princess Puritan.  But it would really be easier to just pay someone to spank you and call you a naughty, dirty sinner.  I might even know a few people who'd do it for free, if you cleaned up and bought them dinner first.
 
2014-07-15 04:58:08 PM  

Callous: mootmah: Callous: FTFA:   executive order barring organizations that take federal money from discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation.

I think I found the solution.

Homosexuality clearly violates their religious beliefs.  Thus they should not be forced to hire them as a matter of law.  But if it's only a condition of accepting tax dollars they have a way to apply their religious beliefs free of government mandate.  Don't take the tax dollars.

But what about the endowment?

/that's what she said

If the endowment money comes from tax dollars then it's subject to the rules the government applies to it.

If you don't want to follow those rules don't accept the money.   It's not farking rocket surgery.Grand_Moff_Joseph: SilentStrider: Grand_Moff_Joseph: good.  This is the only thing that will shut some of these jesus freaks up.


No it won't. They'll just go on without accreditation.

and if employers were smart, they'd refuse to hire individuals from unaccredited "universities", since they can't be 100% sure that they received an adequate education.

Accreditation should be based solely on curriculum and not religious practices as I think that the 1A would explicitly preclude that.


A thousand times this.  Accreditation should only be withheld if a school is not providing a legitimate course of study in comparison to similar programs offered elsewhere.  Using something like accreditation for political means, and however right you might think LGBT issues are it IS a political issue in the end, is a misuse of power.  It's analogous to yanking someone's medical license because they are in the KKK.  The two things are not related.  It's why the Westboro Baptist people still have law licenses.  They are asshats, but they did actually pass a bar exam at some point.

Now, when a school teaches creation 'science' and other nonsense.  Well, then there are legitimate academic concerns.
 
2014-07-15 04:59:16 PM  

Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 236x460]
Au contraire

Thank you for demonstrating my point.


Callous: Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules. Homosexuality isn't one of them though. Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did. That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.


Thank you for demonstrating my point.
 
2014-07-15 04:59:28 PM  

Callous: Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules. Homosexuality isn't one of them though. Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did. That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.


Has there ever been a breakaway sect of Christianity that regards St. Paul as some jerk who came along after Jesus had died, resurrected, and ascended and hijacked the religion?  If not, someone needs to start one.
 
2014-07-15 04:59:33 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: Gunny Highway: Magorn: Boerne SHOULD have been controlling in the Hobby Lobby case but wasn't so where we are now is anybody's guess

The backside of another dune.  Who knows what is on the other side.

[img.tfd.com image 600x338]

Sandworms. Lots and lots of sandworms. Wormsign even the likes of which even God has never seen.


"It is by derp alone I set my mind in motion."
 
2014-07-15 05:00:32 PM  

Nix Nightbird: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

No they aren't.

If they were standing up for the beliefs they're allegedly supposed to divine from Leviticus, then they wouldn't be hiring or admitting anyone who:

* Trims his beard
* Eats shellfish
* Eats blood (yes, even in a rare steak)
* Burns honey
* Touches unclean animals
* Has messy hair
* Tears their clothes
* Drinks alcohol in holy places
* Eats pork or rabbit
* Eats owl, bat, crow, raven, hawk, or kite.
* Goes to church within 33 days of giving birth to a boy
* Goes to church within 66 days of giving birth to a girl
* Has sex with someone during her menstrual cycle
* Reaps the very edges of a field
* Lies
* Steals
* Picks up grapes that have fallen to the ground
* Commits fraud against other people
* Bears a grudge
* Mixes fabrics in their clothing
* Cross-breeds animals
* Plants different seeds in the same field
* Eating the fruit of a tree within four years of planting it
* Reads their horoscope
* Uses a Magic 8-ball
* Cuts their hair at the sides
* Gets tattoos
* Mistreats foreigners
* Marries a widow or divorcee IF they seek to enter the clergy
* Works on Sunday
* Sells land permanently
* Doesn't stand in the presence of the elderly

Yet somehow, the only one of these rules from Leviticus that the Christian assholes get their panties in a twist about is the one about not laying with another man. It doesn't even mention lesbianism, specifically, and the line about laying with another man is mixed in with all the above garbage in Old Testament B.S. rules about what is and is not an "abomination".

If they're going to press one of those rules and say it's "fundamental to their faith" then they can't be picking and choosing from Leviticus-- the WHOLE THING has to be fundamental to their faith, and they just do not act like it is... It's only the parts they personally deem "icky" that causes them to embrace their hatred and wave it like a flag.


I'm too lazy to go look for it, but Jed Bartlet's speech on homosexuality being a sin seems appropriate for this thread.
 
2014-07-15 05:02:15 PM  

flondrix: Callous: Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules. Homosexuality isn't one of them though. Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did. That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.

Has there ever been a breakaway sect of Christianity that regards St. Paul as some jerk who came along after Jesus had died, resurrected, and ascended and hijacked the religion?  If not, someone needs to start one.


Yes.

Apostle Paul Antichrist
 
2014-07-15 05:03:38 PM  

Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 236x460]
Au contraire

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Callous: Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules. Homosexuality isn't one of them though. Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did. That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.


If you have a point I have no idea what it is.  A cartoon from a politically slanted source is hardly a point.
 
2014-07-15 05:06:02 PM  

Callous: Do you hate alcoholics?  How about drug addicts?  Any of your friends or relatives have a criminal record?

You can object to the behavior and not hate the person.  Love doesn't require accepting everything about someone.  Why is it so black or white with you?


Let me see if I can try to explain why we say hate.

I don't hate alcoholics, drug addicts or felons. (Mind you, I also don't believe they're sinners, since I don't believe in sin, but that's getting off topic.) I also don't say that they shouldn't love the person they love. I don't say they shouldn't be allowed to marry the person they love.

When they're family or friends, I try to help them reduce the (secular) damage to their own lives. If they want to change, I support them in that. (How to change being a felon doesn't make sense, but it does on the first two.) Their souls aren't mine to judge.

What do the loving Christians do to the people they just think are sinning? They try to force their ideas on the homosexual people. They say, no matter if the person is a stranger with completely different ideas about sin, that the person can't be allowed to marry the one they love. They tell complete strangers not to love their lover. They tell them that they can't be a good person if they act on it.

The general treatment they get from the Christians, hate or not, is being treated as subhuman. I can only imagine what I'd feel if someone told me that I was an abomination for loving my wife. Whatever the inner feelings of the Christians in question, they don't act like they love gay folks.
 
2014-07-15 05:06:31 PM  
Poetic justice.
 
2014-07-15 05:08:04 PM  

ciberido: DubtodaIll: Dusk-You-n-Me: If discriminating against gays is essential to your religion, what does that say about your religion?

If you assume humanity has always had homosexuality as part of it's fabric why do you think it was forbidden in the first place?

First off, unlike some religious extremists, I prefer to let science explore and endeavor to reveal how and when things came to be rather than ASSUME that the just-so stories my distant ancestors told around their campfires explain things.

Second, to answer your question, I rather believe (to the extent it's as you say) it's for the same reason why it was forbidden to treat people with odd skin tones like equal human begins.  Fearing and disliking the other seems to be one of those things which we "assume" has always been part of humanity's fabric, as you call it.  It is to our shame that many religions codified these prejudices into divine edicts.

Third, homosexuality wasn't really forbidden by religion (not Christianity and certainly not all religions) "in the first place."  Homosexuality predates Christianity and probably all religions practiced today.  Most likely it predates humanity itself.  Nor did every religion which now condemns it always do so.  Specifically, Christianity did not always prohibit homosexuality.  That is, to put it broadly, a myth that is propagated party through ignorance and also because it is very embarrassing to admit that your religion has not always been as it is now.


Ok, so when did discrimation against himosexuality ever occur and why has it been a popular cultural aspect among so many cultures?
Don't get me wrong I'm all about love and treating others as you wish to be treated. However, I do enjoy playing devil advocate, especially if the primary force behind the argument is that "it's the right thing to do." Negative aspects of any successful culture still contribute to the success of that culture. If you're going to tear up a tradition it is best to replace it with something worthy of tradition.
 
2014-07-15 05:08:26 PM  

Callous: flondrix: Callous: Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules. Homosexuality isn't one of them though. Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did. That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.

Has there ever been a breakaway sect of Christianity that regards St. Paul as some jerk who came along after Jesus had died, resurrected, and ascended and hijacked the religion?  If not, someone needs to start one.

Yes.

Apostle Paul Antichrist


I haven't read the book but I have seen a couple interviews with the author and he, and those that agree with him, believe that Paul was a plant by Rome to condition Christians to accept a centrally controlled Christian Church(The Catholic Church) as some of his teachings appear to be in opposition to Christ's teachings.  They believe that Christ preferred small local churches that weren't beholden to anyone else.

Having not read the book or dug into it deeply I have no opinion on it accept that he did seem to have some valid points.
 
2014-07-15 05:08:31 PM  

Boojum2k: Cyclometh: serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Nope. They should take all relevant factors into account and discriminatory hiring policies are very much relevant.

This. The only concern anyone should have in hiring is "can this person do the job reliably and well?" What consenting adults do on their own time isn't anyone else's business, even if they talk about it at work.


So, "does this person have an accredited degree" is no longer a valid check to answer that question?
 
2014-07-15 05:09:30 PM  

kbronsito: My brother went a similar route in law school. The farking law school library (of all places) was not accessible to wheelchairs. He didn't want to sue them, only for them to correct the problem. Their attempt at reasonable accommodation was to have library staff run in and out to get him the books he needed, instead of spending money for the upgrades. They figured he'd graduate before the lawsuit could be completed and he'd lose interest. Several professors even offered to represent him but he felt they were just looking to fark over the dean to settle old scores rather than actually sincere about accessibility. So he saw an announcement about visitors to the University from the American Bar association and sent a nice note to the Dean explaining that he wasn't going to waste his time suing the university, when it was easier to tell the ABA what they were doing. If they lost their accreditation it would harm him because he'd have to switch schools... but it would hurt the school a lot more. Magically, the money to add a ramp and replace the elevator that was always broken appeared.


Your brother must be a fine lawyer- most law students wouldn't have his practical savvy, you generally learn that in practice (and sometimes the hard way.)  Cheers.
 
2014-07-15 05:09:56 PM  
Nix Nightbird:
If they're going to press one of those rules and say it's "fundamental to their faith" then they can't be picking and choosing from Leviticus-- the WHOLE THING has to be fundamental to their faith, and they just do not act like it is... It's only the parts they personally deem "icky" that causes them to embrace their hatred and wave it like a flag.

Well, they have an easy out on that one. If you look at the Bible as a whole, the law of the New Testament replaces the law of the Old. So we are no longer bound by all of those old rules.

If we're going to criticize bible-thumpers for cherry-picking verses to believe in, then bible-bashers shouldn't do the same.
 
2014-07-15 05:15:50 PM  

Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.


No, if they were standing up for their beliefs they would be willing to lose that sweet,sweet federal money they receive. These folds want the federal money but not to follow the rules associated with it.
 
2014-07-15 05:16:25 PM  
er.... fools not folds.
 
2014-07-15 05:17:44 PM  

Callous: No, it's the unrepentant part of it.  If you are living as an open homosexual or continue to engage in the behavior you're an unrepentant sinner.  An alcoholic who continues to drink is an unrepentant sinner as well.  While a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks is a repentant sinner.  Therefore a homosexual who renounces homosexuality and no longer engages in the behavior would be a repentant sinner.

You can replace homosexuality or alcoholism with just about any sin.  The line is drawn at whether or not you are actively engaging in that sin without any intention of stopping or remorse.


That would be logical (however horrible) if indeed homosexuality were a behavior, as it was once thought to be.  But we now understand that homosexuality is part of who a person IS, it's an innate and unalterable characteristic like skin color.

The twist is, when I say "we now understand," I'm actually talking about something that happened thousands of years ago, since  Jesus Himself acknowledged that some men are born gay (as the term "'natural or non-castrated' eunuch" at that time could refer to a gay man).

In short, suggesting that a homosexual should repent of being gay is quite as asinine as suggesting that a black person should repent of their skin.

However, since you do bring the matter up, don't you think God disapproves of those who judge and condemn others, in defiance of His laws, and do so over and over again, unrepentantly?
 
2014-07-15 05:18:33 PM  

Arumat: Copper Spork: netizencain: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Establishment means they can't start their own religion. It does not mean they can't enforce someone else's religion. All it means is that you are free to choose how to worship Jesus Christ, whether you are a Catholic, Protestant or Evangelical.

I really wish there weren't so many people eagerly and genuinely dishing up this Poeslaw.


Edgar Allen's Poe Slawtm to be offered on Fishtastic Friday's at The Pit and the Pendulum
 
2014-07-15 05:21:32 PM  

NotARocketScientist: er.... fools not folds.


I was half wondering if that was some sort of new slang the kids are using these days.
 
2014-07-15 05:22:23 PM  
I May Be Crazy But...: Callous: Do you hate alcoholics?  How about drug addicts?  Any of your friends or relatives have a criminal record?

You can object to the behavior and not hate the person.  Love doesn't require accepting everything about someone.  Why is it so black or white with you?

Let me see if I can try to explain why we say hate.

I don't hate alcoholics, drug addicts or felons. (Mind you, I also don't believe they're sinners, since I don't believe in sin, but that's getting off topic.) I also don't say that they shouldn't love the person they love. I don't say they shouldn't be allowed to marry the person they love.


If you don't believe in any behavior being wrong I can't even have an intelligent conversation with you.

When they're family or friends, I try to help them reduce the (secular) damage to their own lives. If they want to change, I support them in that. (How to change being a felon doesn't make sense, but it does on the first two.) Their souls aren't mine to judge.

So if they wish to continue being a serial killer or child rapist you are okay with that because who are you to judge?

What do the loving Christians do to the people they just think are sinning? They try to force their ideas on the homosexual people. They say, no matter if the person is a stranger with completely different ideas about sin, that the person can't be allowed to marry the one they love. They tell complete strangers not to love their lover. They tell them that they can't be a good person if they act on it.

Yes people who believe that someone is engaging in wrong behavior often try to stop that from occurring.

The general treatment they get from the Christians, hate or not, is being treated as subhuman. I can only imagine what I'd feel if someone told me that I was an abomination for loving my wife. Whatever the inner feelings of the Christians in question, they don't act like they love gay folks.

So you've never seen it happen but because you have heard stories of it happening to someone else it must be true of all Christians?

Stop painting with such a wide brush or don't be surprised when someone says that all homosexuals behave like the worst examples they can find.
 
2014-07-15 05:22:23 PM  

Nix Nightbird: If they were standing up for the beliefs they're allegedly supposed to divine from Leviticus, then they wouldn't be hiring or admitting anyone who:


[list deleted]

You left out "loans money at interest".  It is prohibited several times in the OT, yet people forget to bring it up in lists like this.  Since a lot of conservatives work with money, this is a stronger arguing point than the usual cotton-polyester blends and lobster.

The "selling land permanently" think is new on me.  I'll have to look that one up.
 
2014-07-15 05:23:46 PM  
Is the NEASC also de-accrediting Saint Joseph, Mount Holyoke, Wellesley, or Smith?

Is discrimination against a class what's banned, or just when it's their ox being gored?
 
2014-07-15 05:25:41 PM  

qorkfiend: This can't be true. I was informed that the HL decision would never, ever, under any circumstances, be cited in an attempt to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


You were told no such thing. You were told those lawsuits would not win.

\you can indict a ham sandwich
 
2014-07-15 05:26:26 PM  

Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 236x460]
Au contraire

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Callous: Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules. Homosexuality isn't one of them though. Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did. That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

If you have a point I have no idea what it is.  A cartoon from a politically slanted source is hardly a point.


Here's the point...

Panel 2 of the cartoon: "I accept you as you are, so every night I go home and pray that you'll reject one of the most fundamental aspects of your identity"
You: "You don't understaaaaand Christians"
You, 5 minutes later: "the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin"

Hope that clears things up.
 
2014-07-15 05:27:12 PM  

TheOtherMisterP: Well, they have an easy out on that one. If you look at the Bible as a whole, the law of the New Testament replaces the law of the Old. So we are no longer bound by all of those old rules.


Then they should be quoting Leviticus in such an in-your-face manner.  (Literally--sometimes they shove a sign marked with the relevant passage from Leviticus into people's faces.)

So far as I recall, Jesus only mentioned sexual sins on three occasions--and one of those was to condemn divorce.  (Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the USA, while the Bible Belt is way up there.)
 
2014-07-15 05:28:08 PM  

ciberido: Callous: No, it's the unrepentant part of it.  If you are living as an open homosexual or continue to engage in the behavior you're an unrepentant sinner.  An alcoholic who continues to drink is an unrepentant sinner as well.  While a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks is a repentant sinner.  Therefore a homosexual who renounces homosexuality and no longer engages in the behavior would be a repentant sinner.

You can replace homosexuality or alcoholism with just about any sin.  The line is drawn at whether or not you are actively engaging in that sin without any intention of stopping or remorse.

That would be logical (however horrible) if indeed homosexuality were a behavior, as it was once thought to be.  But we now understand that homosexuality is part of who a person IS, it's an innate and unalterable characteristic like skin color.

The twist is, when I say "we now understand," I'm actually talking about something that happened thousands of years ago, since  Jesus Himself acknowledged that some men are born gay (as the term "'natural or non-castrated' eunuch" at that time could refer to a gay man).

In short, suggesting that a homosexual should repent of being gay is quite as asinine as suggesting that a black person should repent of their skin.

However, since you do bring the matter up, don't you think God disapproves of those who judge and condemn others, in defiance of His laws, and do so over and over again, unrepentantly?


And you just hit the nail on the head as to the debate among Christians that I mentioned earlier.  And a eunuch was someone that was asexual/impotent as a result of castration or birth, not homosexual, as I've always understood them.
 
2014-07-15 05:28:33 PM  

Magorn: So you'd be totally okay with say Bob Jones Universality being fully accredited, even though they forbid interracial dating, for example, just so long as they have a good English department?


Yes?

If the concept is that accreditation determines whether your piece of paper actually conveys some manner of sufficient education, then yes. If the accreditation determines whether your institution upholds some social cause in a popularly acceptable manner, then no.

But whether or not your English degree is worthwhile shouldn't depend on whether you learned it in a LEED-certified building.
 
2014-07-15 05:28:44 PM  
This any different than Obama making government agencies hire people based on race?
 
2014-07-15 05:29:51 PM  

dwrash: Why do people hate freedom of association so much and insist on forcing their beliefs on those that just wish to be left alone?


You can associate with whoever you want - on your own dime.
On my dime, there are rules.
 
2014-07-15 05:30:02 PM  

DubtodaIll: Ok, so when did discrimation against himosexuality ever occur and why has it been a popular cultural aspect among so many cultures?


I already said "Fearing and disliking The Other seems to be one of those things which we "assume" has always been part of humanity's fabric, as you call it" in my last post.   I'm sorry if my failure to capitalize and link "The Other" made my point unclear.

If it helps, the somewhat-oversimplified version is "Because people are assholes,"

This is also, by the way, one reason why I think the radical "New" atheists are fooling themselves (quite apart from their certainty that all religion is false, which I do not share.)  Even if all religion were to die out (which I do not think will happen), humanity would still find ways to be dicks to each other.  Dickery is a part of who we are, and it will never go away.  All we can do is try to use our collective power (via tools such as laws and police and education) to counter that dickery as best we can.

Who exactly "The Other" is changes: this is human history.  But the basic story is the same.  Today it's "Transgendered people are vile and inferior."  Yesterday it was "Gay people are vile and inferior."  A year ago it was "People with dark skin are vile and inferior."   A few centuries ago it was "People with funny accents are vile and inferior."

In a month it will probably be "People with attached earlobes are vile and inferior."
 
2014-07-15 05:30:50 PM  

Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 236x460]
Au contraire

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Callous: Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules. Homosexuality isn't one of them though. Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did. That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

If you have a point I have no idea what it is.  A cartoon from a politically slanted source is hardly a point.

Here's the point...

Panel 2 of the cartoon: "I accept you as you are, so every night I go home and pray that you'll reject one of the most fundamental aspects of your identity"
You: "You don't understaaaaand Christians"
You, 5 minutes later: "the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin"

Hope that clears things up.


So misunderstanding = hate?
 
2014-07-15 05:31:14 PM  

ciberido: That liquid that comes from a rare steak is not blood. It's myoglobin. Of course, since this is religion you're talking about, you can always say "well, it COUNTS as blood" the same way electricity counts as fire for some Jews.


Is this why Passover contains a ban on new-world foodstuffs, like corn and potatoes?
 
2014-07-15 05:32:20 PM  

flondrix: Has there ever been a breakaway sect of Christianity that regards St. Paul as some jerk who came along after Jesus had died, resurrected, and ascended and hijacked the religion?


The gnostics.
 
2014-07-15 05:33:19 PM  

with great power comes great insanity: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

There's a lot of other sins that I bet they aren't worrying about in their hiring decisions.

Do all their employees keep the Sabbath holy, honour their parents, reject wearing clothing of differing fabrics, and stop people with eye defects from going to church?


You are mixing up religious practices that are not relevant for the Christian. No, I would not expect them to reject wearing different fabric clothing, but I would expect them to not hire those practicing adultery or alcoholics or any number of people currently engaged in a sinful lifestyle.

No Christian should hate a gay individual, but they don't have to support or encourage their sin.
 
2014-07-15 05:36:20 PM  

Magorn: Human sacrifice?


Tourist season in D.C..  No bag limit, no slot.
 
2014-07-15 05:36:24 PM  

Lordserb: with great power comes great insanity: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

There's a lot of other sins that I bet they aren't worrying about in their hiring decisions.

Do all their employees keep the Sabbath holy, honour their parents, reject wearing clothing of differing fabrics, and stop people with eye defects from going to church?

You are mixing up religious practices that are not relevant for the Christian. No, I would not expect them to reject wearing different fabric clothing, but I would expect them to not hire those practicing adultery or alcoholics or any number of people currently engaged in a sinful lifestyle.

No Christian should hate a gay individual, but they don't have to support or encourage their sin.


Nobody said they did. If they want Federal Money or state accreditation, they have to follow certain rules - but that applies to everybody -- not just Christians.
 
2014-07-15 05:37:19 PM  

ciberido: DubtodaIll: Ok, so when did discrimation against himosexuality ever occur and why has it been a popular cultural aspect among so many cultures?

I already said "Fearing and disliking The Other seems to be one of those things which we "assume" has always been part of humanity's fabric, as you call it" in my last post.   I'm sorry if my failure to capitalize and link "The Other" made my point unclear.

If it helps, the somewhat-oversimplified version is "Because people are assholes,"

This is also, by the way, one reason why I think the radical "New" atheists are fooling themselves (quite apart from their certainty that all religion is false, which I do not share.)  Even if all religion were to die out (which I do not think will happen), humanity would still find ways to be dicks to each other.  Dickery is a part of who we are, and it will never go away.  All we can do is try to use our collective power (via tools such as laws and police and education) to counter that dickery as best we can.

Who exactly "The Other" is changes: this is human history.  But the basic story is the same.  Today it's "Transgendered people are vile and inferior."  Yesterday it was "Gay people are vile and inferior."  A year ago it was "People with dark skin are vile and inferior."   A few centuries ago it was "People with funny accents are vile and inferior."

In a month it will probably be "People with attached earlobes are vile and inferior."


I'm more of the school that traditions arise independenty due to the success of the individuals practicing that tradition. While people are dicks, there's no doubting that, I don't think all discriminatory action is done out of hatred. Religion, for all it's faults, has the lofty goal of appealing to our better halves in order to promote a successful and stable civilization. On the whole I do agree with your statements.
 
2014-07-15 05:37:55 PM  

TheOtherMisterP: Nix Nightbird:
If they're going to press one of those rules and say it's "fundamental to their faith" then they can't be picking and choosing from Leviticus-- the WHOLE THING has to be fundamental to their faith, and they just do not act like it is... It's only the parts they personally deem "icky" that causes them to embrace their hatred and wave it like a flag.

Well, they have an easy out on that one. If you look at the Bible as a whole, the law of the New Testament replaces the law of the Old. So we are no longer bound by all of those old rules.

If we're going to criticize bible-thumpers for cherry-picking verses to believe in, then bible-bashers shouldn't do the same.


Except that liberal Christians like me FREELY AND CHEERFULLY ADMIT that we pick-and-choose when it comes to the Bible.  The fundamentalist types DENY that they are cherry-picking even when it's repeatedly pointed out exactly which parts they're choosing to ignore.  And it's that hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness that makes this whole issue so frustrating.  If they could at least admit that they're doing the exact same thing, we'd have a much more productive dialog.

Or, of course, they could choose to go all in and actually follow the Bible in its littlest detail.  The result would be that they'd end up a small, quirky, and mostly impotent group like that Amish.   Which would be fine because they'd lose the power to screw with the rest of us.
 
2014-07-15 05:38:25 PM  

serial_crusher: Boojum2k: Cyclometh: serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Nope. They should take all relevant factors into account and discriminatory hiring policies are very much relevant.

This. The only concern anyone should have in hiring is "can this person do the job reliably and well?" What consenting adults do on their own time isn't anyone else's business, even if they talk about it at work.

So, "does this person have an accredited degree" is no longer a valid check to answer that question?


An accredited degree is a way of identifying someone as being able to do certain jobs, so in those cases it certainly still is a valid check. Not sure what this has to do with discrimination against LGBT people though.
 
2014-07-15 05:38:41 PM  
Federal appeals court just ruled that a Texas (of all places) college can use race in admissions.

So, which classes are protected, which are not again?
 
2014-07-15 05:40:20 PM  

This text is now purple: ciberido: That liquid that comes from a rare steak is not blood. It's myoglobin. Of course, since this is religion you're talking about, you can always say "well, it COUNTS as blood" the same way electricity counts as fire for some Jews.

Is this why Passover contains a ban on new-world foodstuffs, like corn and potatoes?


The Passover rules were, essentially, "don't let bread rise", which got reduced to "grain + water + 18 minutes' time" (by tradition; there's no 'science' behind that formula). "Grain" referred to the Main 5 - barley, rye, oats, wheat, spelt - but there's something about the "grain" form (kernels) as well.

So corn, as a "grain", isn't on the same level of prohibition as wheat - it's in a group called kitniyot ("small ones") that includes peanuts as well. Sephardi Jews (those from Western Europe, North Africa, and the ME) don't follow that custom, and those farkers eat peanut butter on matza like they own the place.

// and potatoes are A-OK on Passover - don't know where you heard that one
 
2014-07-15 05:40:32 PM  
Jesus christ someone give Thunderpipes the attention he's clearly desperate for.
 
2014-07-15 05:41:29 PM  

Callous: I May Be Crazy But...:  When they're family or friends, I try to help them reduce the (secular) damage to their own lives. If they want to change, I support them in that. (How to change being a felon doesn't make sense, but it does on the first two.) Their souls aren't mine to judge.

So if they wish to continue being a serial killer or child rapist you are okay with that because who are you to judge?


If you cannot grasp the difference between something two consenting adults do together and something a criminal inflicts upon an unwilling victim, then you are not fit to participate in this conversation.
 
2014-07-15 05:43:40 PM  
Callous

Isn't there something in there (Deuteronomy, IIRC) that says that only god knows the hierarchy of which sins are "worse" than others?

So homosexuality might not be as bad as, say, theft or usury or adultery or wearing mixed fibers, etc. Odd that Christianity has chosen that hill to die on.
 
2014-07-15 05:47:33 PM  

Nix Nightbird: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

No they aren't.

If they were standing up for the beliefs they're allegedly supposed to divine from Leviticus, then they wouldn't be hiring or admitting anyone who:



Love that list.  Let's see what I can check off...

* Trims his beard

Yep

* Eats shellfish

Love shellfish!

* Eats blood (yes, even in a rare steak)

Pass that blood sausage, please!

* Burns honey

Only by accident while making mead one time...  Why waste honey?

* Touches unclean animals

They pretty much all are unclean, so yep.

* Has messy hair

Yeah, it's kinda ratty right now.  I'll get it cut when I get around to it.

* Tears their clothes

I did rip up some old t-shirts to make some rags recently...  Does ripping someone else's panties off count, I've done that before (with her permission, of course)?

* Drinks alcohol in holy places

Well, no such place, but I'll drink alcohol pretty much wherever.

* Eats pork or rabbit

Yummy!  I'll have the ribs and the hasenpfeffer, please!

* Eats owl, bat, crow, raven, hawk, or kite.

Hmm...  I've heard bat can be tasty, I'm sure I'll try it sometime.  I'm not eating a kite, though.  Plastic, paper, wood, and string just don't sound good to me.

* Goes to church within 33 days of giving birth to a boy
* Goes to church within 66 days of giving birth to a girl

Wouldn't dream of going to church.  Oh, and am male.

* Has sex with someone during her menstrual cycle

Oh yeah.  Hey, extra lube!

* Reaps the very edges of a field

No, and not likely to.  Farming has no appeal to me.

* Lies

Done it.

* Steals

Copying isn't theft.

* Picks up grapes that have fallen to the ground

5 second rule.

* Commits fraud against other people

That is kinda rude.

* Bears a grudge

A few.

* Mixes fabrics in their clothing

Technically, the kids in the sweatshops did it for me.

* Cross-breeds animals
* Plants different seeds in the same field

Farming.  Nope.

* Eating the fruit of a tree within four years of planting it

Yep.  Tiny little peach, but I had to taste it.  It was ok.

* Reads their horoscope

Only for occasional amusement.  But hey, it's as real as their god, so there's that.

* Uses a Magic 8-ball

There's an app for that.

* Cuts their hair at the sides

Done it.

* Gets tattoos

I hate needles.  So no.

* Mistreats foreigners

Only if they annoy me.

* Marries a widow or divorcee IF they seek to enter the clergy

Why would I marry a crazy woman?  I mean, really, I'm not marrying anybody who wants to go become clergy.  Well, unless it's ULC or the Humanist Jews, since they're good with atheists.

* Works on Sunday

Yep.  Hey, I get bored.

* Sells land permanently

Um, sure.

* Doesn't stand in the presence of the elderly

Only if I feel like being nice and there aren't any other seats - but I don't live in NYC, so it's a rare occasion.
 
2014-07-15 05:47:34 PM  

genner: The important thing to remember is that gay marriage doesn't affect you...... as long you don't run a bakery.....or a school.


How does it affect you if you run a bakery or a school?
 
2014-07-15 05:47:56 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Jesus christ someone give Thunderpipes the attention he's clearly desperate for.


i was hoping that was a figment of my imagination.  I mean, no one could be that dense an be real.
 
2014-07-15 05:48:34 PM  

Dr Dreidel: This text is now purple: ciberido: That liquid that comes from a rare steak is not blood. It's myoglobin. Of course, since this is religion you're talking about, you can always say "well, it COUNTS as blood" the same way electricity counts as fire for some Jews.

Is this why Passover contains a ban on new-world foodstuffs, like corn and potatoes?

The Passover rules were, essentially, "don't let bread rise", which got reduced to "grain + water + 18 minutes' time" (by tradition; there's no 'science' behind that formula). "Grain" referred to the Main 5 - barley, rye, oats, wheat, spelt - but there's something about the "grain" form (kernels) as well.

So corn, as a "grain", isn't on the same level of prohibition as wheat - it's in a group called kitniyot ("small ones") that includes peanuts as well. Sephardi Jews (those from Western Europe, North Africa, and the ME) don't follow that custom, and those farkers eat peanut butter on matza like they own the place.

// and potatoes are A-OK on Passover - don't know where you heard that one


lifewithcake.com

So these babies are kosher, then?
 
2014-07-15 05:48:51 PM  

Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 236x460]
Au contraire

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Callous: Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules. Homosexuality isn't one of them though. Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did. That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

If you have a point I have no idea what it is.  A cartoon from a politically slanted source is hardly a point.

Here's the point...

Panel 2 of the cartoon: "I accept you as you are, so every night I go home and pray that you'll reject one of the most fundamental aspects of your identity"
You: "You don't understaaaaand Christians"
You, 5 minutes later: "the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin"

Hope that clears things up.

So misunderstanding = hate?


No, but telling someone that an innate, fundamental aspect of their identity is an offense against God = hate. As much as Christians would like to avoid admitting it. Oh, wait, I forgot - "love the sinner, hate the sin" makes it all better!

Right?
 
2014-07-15 05:49:06 PM  

Callous: And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.


Here's the thing.  We don't really CARE whether you hate us or not.  We care what you do to us.  You can hate, hate, hate your neighbor across the street for his black skin, or love, love, love him because you think he's the bee's knees.  Doesn't matter.  What does matter is whether you burn a cross on his lawn, or slash his tires.  If you do, then you are an asshole and you need to be stopped.

And when the police come to arrest you for setting his house on fire, you crying, "There is no hate or malice involved!  Some of my best friends are black!" isn't going to matter.  You're still a farking arsonist, and you still are going to rot in jail.
 
2014-07-15 05:52:02 PM  

Lordserb: No Christian should hate a gay individual, but they don't have to support or encourage their sin.


They do if they want to keep their accreditation and federal money, it would seem.
 
2014-07-15 05:52:57 PM  

qorkfiend: This can't be true. I was informed that the HL decision would never, ever, under any circumstances, be cited in an attempt to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


You were assured that it wouldn't be used to justify racial discrimination which now SCOTUS considers to be evil.  Past supreme courts were not always certain about the evil of racism.

Homosexuals (and women to a large extent), however, are still OK targets for discrimination.  We still have a long way to go.
 
2014-07-15 05:57:30 PM  

MyRandomName: qorkfiend: This can't be true. I was informed that the HL decision would never, ever, under any circumstances, be cited in an attempt to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

It still isnt. All HL didwas state the executive had to follow a congressionally passed law. It was a statutory case. There are still 3 steps to be met to allow the college to discriminate. HL changed no laws. None. Zero. It just told the administration to follow it.

Sorry you remain ignorant to reality.


Sorry, that might be the political spin placed on the majority opinion by political types who favored the outcome, but it's not true.  The RFRA is not a run of the mill statute based wholly upon legislative powers, but one that includes past First Amendment juridical thinking by reference.  The majority interpreted RFRA as restricting Congressional power to burden free exercise of religion beyond the scope of the right protected by the First Amendment, despite a contrary intent expressly included in the text of the act when it passed the act. Usual appellate court practice is to look to the text alone to interpret a given statute and to refuse to look to the legislative history to determine legislative intentif any ambiguity exists in the text. but here Alito refused to look to the text's express statement of intent and purpose to resolve what he saw as an ambiguity in the use of "person" in the act.  That makes the opinion unusual and almost unprecedented.

Alito further abandoned precedent in his effective reverse piercing of the corporate veil when he disregarded the separate identity of a for-profit business corporation from that of its owners and stated that there was no separate identity from the religious beliefs of the owners and those of the corporation.  No previous SCOTUS case had recognized a religious belief in a for profit business corporation. Until Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. clear distinctions had been drawn between the nature and purposes of non-profit charitable and religious corporate "persons" on one hand and those of for profit business corporations on the other and the body of law regarding each was correspondingly different.  With respect to business corporations, the separate identities of the natural person(s) who incorporated them and the corporation itself was rarely disregarded and when it was that refusal to recognize a separate identity was grounded in equitable principles (e.g. fraud) rather than law.

Only one previous SCOTUS case had been granted cert where one of the parties had attempted to claim such a religious belief in a for profit business corporation and in that case the Court issued an adverse ruling on the merits in favor of the challenged statutes finding that it wasn't necessary to address the claim of religious belief in the for profit business corporation.  It's silly to summarize this as "telling the administration to follow" a statue that had never been given this interpretation or the fundamental shift in precedent in American Corporate law.
 
2014-07-15 05:57:36 PM  

Bawdy George: So misunderstanding = hate?


No, but telling someone that an innate, fundamental aspect of their identity is an offense against God = hate. As much as Christians would like to avoid admitting it. Oh, wait, I forgot - "love the sinner, hate the sin" makes it all better!

Right?


When you don't believe it's an aspect of their identity anymore than being an alcoholic would be, than no it's not.
 
2014-07-15 06:00:19 PM  

ciberido: Callous: And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

Here's the thing.  We don't really CARE whether you hate us or not.  We care what you do to us.  You can hate, hate, hate your neighbor across the street for his black skin, or love, love, love him because you think he's the bee's knees.  Doesn't matter.  What does matter is whether you burn a cross on his lawn, or slash his tires.  If you do, then you are an asshole and you need to be stopped.

And when the police come to arrest you for setting his house on fire, you crying, "There is no hate or malice involved!  Some of my best friends are black!" isn't going to matter.  You're still a farking arsonist, and you still are going to rot in jail.


Then why is "NO H8TE!!!!!!" the rallying cry to oppose any anti-gay laws?  If you don't care, why is it the cornerstone of your whole argument against those laws?
 
2014-07-15 06:01:21 PM  

Callous: Bawdy George: So misunderstanding = hate?


No, but telling someone that an innate, fundamental aspect of their identity is an offense against God = hate. As much as Christians would like to avoid admitting it. Oh, wait, I forgot - "love the sinner, hate the sin" makes it all better!

Right?

When you don't believe it's an aspect of their identity anymore than being an alcoholic would be, than no it's not.


Keep going with that, it's certainly working out for you.
 
2014-07-15 06:04:41 PM  

Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.


Is this the same bible where Lot offered his daughters to an angry mob?   Is this the bible where daughter's *seduce* their father and become pregnant by him?  Forgive me if I don't want my tax dollars supporting every cockamamie, farked up belief system that some misguided fool falls into.
 
2014-07-15 06:05:02 PM  

ciberido: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...:  When they're family or friends, I try to help them reduce the (secular) damage to their own lives. If they want to change, I support them in that. (How to change being a felon doesn't make sense, but it does on the first two.) Their souls aren't mine to judge.

So if they wish to continue being a serial killer or child rapist you are okay with that because who are you to judge?

If you cannot grasp the difference between something two consenting adults do together and something a criminal inflicts upon an unwilling victim, then you are not fit to participate in this conversation.


You are the one that said you didn't believe in sin.  Sin is merely another term for wrong behavior.  Clearly rape and murder are not on the same level as something two consenting adults do.  However drug abuse and alcoholism is something that a consenting adult does.  So you would approve if they wanted to continue being a junkie or alcoholic?
 
2014-07-15 06:09:03 PM  
Grand_Moff_Joseph - ...if employers were smart, they'd refuse to hire individuals from unaccredited "universities", since they can't be 100% sure that they received an adequate education.

I have spent over 30 years working with college grads from every walk of higher education, and I have not seen anything that proves 100% that any of them received an adequate education. Thanks to my last job, I doubt there is a college out there that can offer 50% assurance.

/I am sorry, but when I have to tell a person with three degrees (one of them in computer sciences) on their wall that, since they unplugged everything on their laptop to take it home, and have returned and want sound again, they have to re-insert the cords they had unplugged...
//I will say it again, this person had a degree in computer sciences
///And for all those who might wish to say that one person does not a complete picture of higher education make, I will say it again:  she unplugged the audio cord and could not figure out why she had no sound the next day. This is something I had figured out when I was 4 years of age and wanted to exchange speakers on my record player. And this person was graduated from an institution of higher learning with a degree in the very device I was having to educate her on how to do the most basic things with!
//// yep, ended on a preposition and overused slashes... just one of the dumb things we non-college grads do on a daily basis.... well, that and fix all the crap ruined by the grads...
 
2014-07-15 06:09:11 PM  

Copper Spork: netizencain: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Establishment means they can't start their own religion. It does not mean they can't enforce someone else's religion. All it means is that you are free to choose how to worship Jesus Christ, whether you are a Catholic, Protestant or Evangelical.


That's a silly reading of the Establishment Clause given that there were already Established CHurches in several of the states at the time of the adoption of the Constitution so if the delegates had wanted Congress to be able to mandate a national church they had existing ones to choose from and non Christian churches they could have empowered Congress to choose as well.  Given their knowledge of the evils of the wars and persecutions caused by Established Churches in Europe that were still in common memory at the time of the Constitutional Convention, the delegates expressly chose to prevent such evils from infecting the new secular nation they were creating and left religious beliefs to the conscious of the individual and not to the body politic.
 
2014-07-15 06:10:49 PM  

Callous: ciberido: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...:  When they're family or friends, I try to help them reduce the (secular) damage to their own lives. If they want to change, I support them in that. (How to change being a felon doesn't make sense, but it does on the first two.) Their souls aren't mine to judge.

So if they wish to continue being a serial killer or child rapist you are okay with that because who are you to judge?

If you cannot grasp the difference between something two consenting adults do together and something a criminal inflicts upon an unwilling victim, then you are not fit to participate in this conversation.

You are the one that said you didn't believe in sin.  Sin is merely another term for wrong behavior.  Clearly rape and murder are not on the same level as something two consenting adults do.  However drug abuse and alcoholism is something that a consenting adult does.  So you would approve if they wanted to continue being a junkie or alcoholic?


Sin is defined as "offense against God". You can't even get apologetics right.
 
2014-07-15 06:11:42 PM  

kbronsito: My brother went a similar route in law school. The farking law school library (of all places) was not accessible to wheelchairs. He didn't want to sue them, only for them to correct the problem. Their attempt at reasonable accommodation was to have library staff run in and out to get him the books he needed, instead of spending money for the upgrades. They figured he'd graduate before the lawsuit could be completed and he'd lose interest. Several professors even offered to represent him but he felt they were just looking to fark over the dean to settle old scores rather than actually sincere about accessibility. So he saw an announcement about visitors to the University from the American Bar association and sent a nice note to the Dean explaining that he wasn't going to waste his time suing the university, when it was easier to tell the ABA what they were doing. If they lost their accreditation it would harm him because he'd have to switch schools... but it would hurt the school a lot more. Magically, the money to add a ramp and replace the elevator that was always broken appeared.


I'm going to use this on the next "why is college so expensive thread." I'm sure it's scheduled for tomorrow.
 
2014-07-15 06:13:05 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: Gunny Highway: Magorn: Boerne SHOULD have been controlling in the Hobby Lobby case but wasn't so where we are now is anybody's guess

The backside of another dune.  Who knows what is on the other side.

[img.tfd.com image 600x338]

Sandworms. Lots and lots of sandworms. Wormsign even the likes of which even God has never seen.


well ok, they don't have to hire rug munchers and fudge packers, but they don't get any federal money either. Accreditation should be based solely on the academic program. stop forcing the homosexual agenda on every single group, organization and business. don't like them go else ware.
 
2014-07-15 06:15:04 PM  
Let me start by saying that I've cut out what Callous responded to for space purposes and formatting clarity. Go ahead and read them in context.

Callous: If you don't believe in any behavior being wrong I can't even have an intelligent conversation with you.


I believe in right and wrong, but sin and wrong aren't the same. You may use them interchangeably, but sin carries a strong religious connotation that keeps a lot of people from using it.

Callous: So if they wish to continue being a serial killer or child rapist you are okay with that because who are you to judge?


Good point. Add "and prevent them from doing (secular) damage to the lives of others" to the end of the first sentence. Anyway, you brought up being a felon in talking about hiring practices. Since I assumed you weren't calling being gay and being a child rapist or serial killer similar, I thought you meant someone who'd reformed.

Callous: Yes people who believe that someone is engaging in wrong behavior often try to stop that from occurring.

[Quote deleted]

So you've never seen it happen but because you have heard stories of it happening to someone else it must be true of all Christians?

Stop painting with such a wide brush or don't be surprised when someone says that all homosexuals behave like the worst examples they can find.


They're trying to stop behavior that can't possibly be hurting anyone but the person doing it. AND when the person doing it very likely doesn't even believe that it's wrong. There is no secular damage done by being gay.

And I'm talking about what I've seen happen. I've heard a friend's parents tell him that he has to stop being gay or he'll go to hell. (I didn't believe him that he couldn't go home without hearing it. Since they did it when there was company, I'm inclined to believe him now.) I've heard sermons calling some of the people I care for most in this world abominations. I've seen large political campaigns to prevent them from being able to marry (not just Christians there, but also many Christians).

And as for me painting with too big a brush, this started (or rather, I got included) when I said that not all Christians hate homosexuals.and I haven't yet argued with your change from "not all" to "very few".

Let me repeat - whatever the Christians in question FEEL, they ACT as though being gay makes a person less human. So when we say that they hate homosexuals, we're not doing it for nothing. That's the point I was trying and apparently failing to make.
 
2014-07-15 06:18:48 PM  

Bawdy George: Callous: ciberido: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...:  When they're family or friends, I try to help them reduce the (secular) damage to their own lives. If they want to change, I support them in that. (How to change being a felon doesn't make sense, but it does on the first two.) Their souls aren't mine to judge.

So if they wish to continue being a serial killer or child rapist you are okay with that because who are you to judge?

If you cannot grasp the difference between something two consenting adults do together and something a criminal inflicts upon an unwilling victim, then you are not fit to participate in this conversation.

You are the one that said you didn't believe in sin.  Sin is merely another term for wrong behavior.  Clearly rape and murder are not on the same level as something two consenting adults do.  However drug abuse and alcoholism is something that a consenting adult does.  So you would approve if they wanted to continue being a junkie or alcoholic?

Sin is defined as "offense against God". You can't even get apologetics right.


Now who's picking and choosing?
 
2014-07-15 06:23:13 PM  

Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: ciberido: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...:  When they're family or friends, I try to help them reduce the (secular) damage to their own lives. If they want to change, I support them in that. (How to change being a felon doesn't make sense, but it does on the first two.) Their souls aren't mine to judge.

So if they wish to continue being a serial killer or child rapist you are okay with that because who are you to judge?

If you cannot grasp the difference between something two consenting adults do together and something a criminal inflicts upon an unwilling victim, then you are not fit to participate in this conversation.

You are the one that said you didn't believe in sin.  Sin is merely another term for wrong behavior.  Clearly rape and murder are not on the same level as something two consenting adults do.  However drug abuse and alcoholism is something that a consenting adult does.  So you would approve if they wanted to continue being a junkie or alcoholic?

Sin is defined as "offense against God". You can't even get apologetics right.

Now who's picking and choosing?


I am. I picked a demonstrably false statement within your weak apologetic argument and chose to point it out.
 
2014-07-15 06:24:31 PM  

Callous: ciberido: serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Funny thing is, if you want to be accredited, there's a list of rules you have to agree to follow.  Let's take a look at rule 11.5, shall we?

11.5  The institution adheres to non-discriminatory policies and practices in recruitment, admissions, employment, evaluation, disciplinary action, and advancement. It fosters an atmosphere within the institutional community that respects and supports people of diverse characteristics and backgrounds.

So they can't refuse to hire someone who fails a drug test or has a criminal record?  Oh they can because it's accepted that crime and drug use are wrong behaviors.  To a Christian homosexuality is wrong.


Christians are free to think that homosexuality is wrong.  No one is arresting them or confiscating their property.  However, they cannot use my tax dollars to discriminate against people whom they consider to be "wrong."   These *wrong* people are living their lives legally.  They have every right to pursue love and sex  Our society guarantees the right of people to not be constrained by the religion of others.

Our society also guarantees the right of citizens to call out bigots as they see them.
 
2014-07-15 06:33:40 PM  

DrunkWithImpotence: It's analogous to yanking someone's medical license because they are in the KKK.


I don't think that I could trust the medical care of an african american to someone who was in the KKK.  It is a terrorist organization based on hatred of certain groups of people.  If I were on the state board I couldn't issue a medical license to someone who openly advocates hatred of humans.
 
2014-07-15 06:34:10 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: And as for me painting with too big a brush, this started (or rather, I got included) when I said that not all Christians hate homosexuals.and I haven't yet argued with your change from "not all" to "very few".

Let me repeat - whatever the Christians in question FEEL, they ACT as though being gay makes a person less human. So when we say that they hate homosexuals, we're not doing it for nothing. That's the point I was trying and apparently failing to make.


Telling someone that wrong behavior is wrong does not imply that someone is less human.  Most Christians do not believe that homosexuality is a facet of one's personality and therefore is merely another wrong behavior to be discontinued.  Most see it no differently than one would view drug addiction or alcoholism.  Yes there are some that believe it's some kind of mortal sin that will keep one out of heaven.  I have heard a pastor from a pulpit say the words, "There will be no homosexuals in heaven".  He went on to clarify that he meant unrepentant homosexuals when the reaction from the congregation was clearly negative..  But I have never heard anyone say anything about it making anyone less than human.
 
2014-07-15 06:35:13 PM  

Callous: ciberido: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...:  When they're family or friends, I try to help them reduce the (secular) damage to their own lives. If they want to change, I support them in that. (How to change being a felon doesn't make sense, but it does on the first two.) Their souls aren't mine to judge.

So if they wish to continue being a serial killer or child rapist you are okay with that because who are you to judge?

If you cannot grasp the difference between something two consenting adults do together and something a criminal inflicts upon an unwilling victim, then you are not fit to participate in this conversation.

You are the one that said you didn't believe in sin.  Sin is merely another term for wrong behavior.  Clearly rape and murder are not on the same level as something two consenting adults do.  However drug abuse and alcoholism is something that a consenting adult does.  So you would approve if they wanted to continue being a junkie or alcoholic?


He's not the one who said that. Anyway, "sin" has a strong religious component, whether you specifically mean to include it or not. So no, I don't believe in sin, but I certainly do believe in right and wrong.

And, in fact, yes I would approve of someone who wants to be a drug addict or an alcoholic doing it, so long as they have it under control. If they can't keep from hurting themselves, they need someone to try to convince them to get it under control. If they hurt others, they need to be forced to stop. But a functional drunk? They're free to do that, as far as I'm concerned.  A functional drug addict should probably be strongly encouraged to stop for legal reasons.
 
2014-07-15 06:35:16 PM  

genner: The important thing to remember is that gay marriage doesn't affect you...... as long you don't run a bakery.....or a school.


As long as you don't take federal money to run your crappy god bothering school, you mean. These clowns are totally free not to hire gays, but they can't get federal money if they do.
 
2014-07-15 06:38:07 PM  

Callous: Most Christians do not believe that homosexuality is a facet of one's personality


Okay, but they're wrong. "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is just a way for bigots to justify their bigotry.
 
2014-07-15 06:39:04 PM  

Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.


Instead of being concerned about whether they are "standing up for their beliefs", be more concerned about what those beliefs are.
 
2014-07-15 06:39:07 PM  

Graffito: Callous: ciberido: serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Funny thing is, if you want to be accredited, there's a list of rules you have to agree to follow.  Let's take a look at rule 11.5, shall we?

11.5  The institution adheres to non-discriminatory policies and practices in recruitment, admissions, employment, evaluation, disciplinary action, and advancement. It fosters an atmosphere within the institutional community that respects and supports people of diverse characteristics and backgrounds.

So they can't refuse to hire someone who fails a drug test or has a criminal record?  Oh they can because it's accepted that crime and drug use are wrong behaviors.  To a Christian homosexuality is wrong.

Christians are free to think that homosexuality is wrong.  No one is arresting them or confiscating their property.  However, they cannot use my tax dollars to discriminate against people whom they consider to be "wrong."   These *wrong* people are living their lives legally.  They have every right to pursue love and sex  Our society guarantees the right of people to not be constrained by the religion of others.

Our society also guarantees the right of citizens to call out bigots as they see them.


And if you read the rest of my comments you will see that I said precisely what you said.
 
2014-07-15 06:39:34 PM  
Discrimination against others: Not yours, religionists.
 
2014-07-15 06:40:06 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: Most Christians do not believe that homosexuality is a facet of one's personality

Okay, but they're wrong. "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is just a way for bigots to justify their bigotry.


No it's a demonstration of their belief that behaviors don't define the person.
 
2014-07-15 06:41:53 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Callous: ciberido: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...:  When they're family or friends, I try to help them reduce the (secular) damage to their own lives. If they want to change, I support them in that. (How to change being a felon doesn't make sense, but it does on the first two.) Their souls aren't mine to judge.

So if they wish to continue being a serial killer or child rapist you are okay with that because who are you to judge?

If you cannot grasp the difference between something two consenting adults do together and something a criminal inflicts upon an unwilling victim, then you are not fit to participate in this conversation.

You are the one that said you didn't believe in sin.  Sin is merely another term for wrong behavior.  Clearly rape and murder are not on the same level as something two consenting adults do.  However drug abuse and alcoholism is something that a consenting adult does.  So you would approve if they wanted to continue being a junkie or alcoholic?

He's not the one who said that. Anyway, "sin" has a strong religious component, whether you specifically mean to include it or not. So no, I don't believe in sin, but I certainly do believe in right and wrong.

And, in fact, yes I would approve of someone who wants to be a drug addict or an alcoholic doing it, so long as they have it under control. If they can't keep from hurting themselves, they need someone to try to convince them to get it under control. If they hurt others, they need to be forced to stop. But a functional drunk? They're free to do that, as far as I'm concerned.  A functional drug addict should probably be strongly encouraged to stop for legal reasons.


There is no such thing as a addict that "has it under control".  If they are addicted it controls them.
 
2014-07-15 06:43:01 PM  

Callous: patrick767: Callous:
And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

Hate may be too strong of a word for many people. On the other hand I call bullshiat on most of the anti-gay Christians who claim to love gay people. They love to spout "hate the sin, love the sinner", but in many Christians' attitudes toward and treatment of gay people, I don't see anything resembling love. Actions count a hell of a lot more than words. Besides, who can love someone without accepting them? Who we choose to love is an integral part of who we are as a person. If we can't accept that aspect of someone's life, then I think it's bullshiat to claim we love them.

Do you hate alcoholics?  How about drug addicts?  Any of your friends or relatives have a criminal record?

You can object to the behavior and not hate the person.  Love doesn't require accepting everything about someone.  Why is it so black or white with you?


Why would you or anyone else equate homosexuality with alcoholism, drug addiction, and criminal actions? It's a piss poor comparison. Homosexuality is not an addiction or something harmful, and it's a fundamental part of a person's identity. Alcoholism, drug addiction, and most criminal acts are self-destructive and frequently harmful to others.

You don't have to accept absolutely everything someone does, but I'd argue that you do have to accept who they are as a person in order to love them. Sexuality is an incredibly important aspect of our lives.
 
2014-07-15 06:44:57 PM  
Why do people want companies, organizations, and other entities to hire people who may work to go against everything those groups believe in?  Should a mom-and-pop store have to hire someone who robbed them a dozen times before because not doing so would be discriminating against criminals?  Should the military be expected to bring on people who protested wars in the past and will ignore orders once enlisted?  Should a mosque be forced to hire someone with a Mohammed tattoo on his or her face?

I'm not saying that all homosexuals would act in such a way, but when you are concerned that a hiring is counter to the message of your work, you should have every right to deny employment, no exceptions.

Besides, would you want to work for someone who doesn't want you around anyway?
 
2014-07-15 06:47:50 PM  

Callous: No it's a demonstration of their belief that behaviors don't define the person


Right, a cop out. "Gay people are cool with us as long as they don't, you know, do anything gay."

Gee golly, what a deal for gays! How generous of the religious to allow gays to exist in our modern society as long as they conform to the rules that please the religious. See gays, what's the problem? Be gay, just don't, be gay. See, we're not bigots! We good? We good.
 
2014-07-15 06:48:03 PM  

Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: And as for me painting with too big a brush, this started (or rather, I got included) when I said that not all Christians hate homosexuals.and I haven't yet argued with your change from "not all" to "very few".

Let me repeat - whatever the Christians in question FEEL, they ACT as though being gay makes a person less human. So when we say that they hate homosexuals, we're not doing it for nothing. That's the point I was trying and apparently failing to make.

Telling someone that wrong behavior is wrong does not imply that someone is less human.  Most Christians do not believe that homosexuality is a facet of one's personality and therefore is merely another wrong behavior to be discontinued.  Most see it no differently than one would view drug addiction or alcoholism.  Yes there are some that believe it's some kind of mortal sin that will keep one out of heaven.  I have heard a pastor from a pulpit say the words, "There will be no homosexuals in heaven".  He went on to clarify that he meant unrepentant homosexuals when the reaction from the congregation was clearly negative..  But I have never heard anyone say anything about it making anyone less than human.


And I've heard homosexuals called an abomination from the pulpit. Not just a sin - an abomination. Even if you just call it a sin there's only so many time a person can be told that they're going to hell before they start to take it personally.

And then there's how the people in question act. They don't stick to the pulpit (to call it a sin or more). They say that gay folks shouldn't be allowed to marry. I think I'd be well justified if I said that someone who told me I wasn't allowed to marry my wife was denying some of by basic humanity.

Mostly, they aren't bad people. I'll even go along with you when you say that most of them don't hate gays. But please try to see it from the side of the gay people while you tell us to see it from the side of the Christians.
 
2014-07-15 06:48:11 PM  

Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 236x460]
Au contraire

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Callous: Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules. Homosexuality isn't one of them though. Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did. That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

If you have a point I have no idea what it is.  A cartoon from a politically slanted source is hardly a point.


I thought that the cartoon sounded much like you. All this hate the sin - love the sinner business sounds like you think you are doing homosexuals some great favor, but there's no way that calling someone's identity wrong or sinful can come across as anything other than douchebaggery.

Try to imagine someone telling you constantly how much they "tolerate" you and how much they disapprove of your behavior, but they still "love" you while constantly filing lawsuits to make your life harder.  I doubt that you would be as patient and gracious as most gay people have been.

I get that you have issues around homosexuality.  You claim that these are religious beliefs, but you have to admit that religion has long been an excuse for misogyny and racial bigotry so it's easy for me to draw parallels with bigotry against gays.

What do we do with a religion that advocates for unequal treatment of citizens?
 
2014-07-15 06:49:33 PM  

Callous: There is no such thing as a addict that "has it under control".  If they are addicted it controls them.


That's a discussion for another time.
 
2014-07-15 06:50:21 PM  

patrick767: Callous: patrick767: Callous:
And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

Hate may be too strong of a word for many people. On the other hand I call bullshiat on most of the anti-gay Christians who claim to love gay people. They love to spout "hate the sin, love the sinner", but in many Christians' attitudes toward and treatment of gay people, I don't see anything resembling love. Actions count a hell of a lot more than words. Besides, who can love someone without accepting them? Who we choose to love is an integral part of who we are as a person. If we can't accept that aspect of someone's life, then I think it's bullshiat to claim we love them.

Do you hate alcoholics?  How about drug addicts?  Any of your friends or relatives have a criminal record?

You can object to the behavior and not hate the person.  Love doesn't require accepting everything about someone.  Why is it so black or white with you?

Why would you or anyone else equate homosexuality with alcoholism, drug addiction, and criminal actions? It's a piss poor comparison. Homosexuality is not an addiction or something harmful, and it's a fundamental part of a person's identity. Alcoholism, drug addiction, and most criminal acts are self-destructive and frequently harmful to others.


Christians view homosexuality the same way as they believe it destroys/damages one spiritually just like every other sin.

You don't have to accept absolutely everything someone does, but I'd argue that you do have to accept who they are as a person in order to love them. Sexuality is an incredibly important aspect of our lives.

I have heard pedophiles make that same argument but I'm at work so I'm not going to look up or link to an example.
 
2014-07-15 06:51:55 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: No it's a demonstration of their belief that behaviors don't define the person

Right, a cop out. "Gay people are cool with us as long as they don't, you know, do anything gay."

Gee golly, what a deal for gays! How generous of the religious to allow gays to exist in our modern society as long as they conform to the rules that please the religious. See gays, what's the problem? Be gay, just don't, be gay. See, we're not bigots! We good? We good.


The vacuous arguments Christian apologists come up with to justify their homophobic bigotry would be kind of amusing if they weren't so sad.
 
2014-07-15 06:52:09 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: No it's a demonstration of their belief that behaviors don't define the person

Right, a cop out. "Gay people are cool with us as long as they don't, you know, do anything gay."

Gee golly, what a deal for gays! How generous of the religious to allow gays to exist in our modern society as long as they conform to the rules that please the religious. See gays, what's the problem? Be gay, just don't, be gay. See, we're not bigots! We good? We good.


Not a cop out.  To them it's merely a behavior and not a facet of one's personality.  So not engaging in homosexual behavior is no different than not taking another drink.
 
2014-07-15 06:53:16 PM  

Callous: I have heard pedophiles make that same argument


Ah, there it is. Bigot go-to #48. Let that bigot flag fly!
 
2014-07-15 06:54:27 PM  

Callous: To them it's merely a behavior and not a facet of one's personality.


Sure, but they're wrong. And, you know, bigots.
 
2014-07-15 06:57:42 PM  

Callous: Christians view homosexuality the same way as they believe it destroys/damages one spiritually just like every other sin.


That right there. THAT is the difference I've been groping for. In their view, homosexuality damages someone spiritually.

When you believe that this life is fleeting and the afterlife is forever, it makes sense to try to change it. When the person you're trying to change doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin, believes in a whole different afterlife, or doesn't believe in an afterlife at all, what you're actually doing (no matter what you believe or mean to do) is trying to stop them living their life as best they can.

Note that I use "you" because it made the pronouns easier.
 
2014-07-15 06:58:12 PM  

Callous: Bawdy George: So misunderstanding = hate?


No, but telling someone that an innate, fundamental aspect of their identity is an offense against God = hate. As much as Christians would like to avoid admitting it. Oh, wait, I forgot - "love the sinner, hate the sin" makes it all better!

Right?

When you don't believe it's an aspect of their identity anymore than being an alcoholic would be, than no it's not.


Is that like how Hobby Lobby believes that IUDs are abortiofacients despite what the Am. College of OB/GYN says?
 
2014-07-15 06:59:03 PM  

Bawdy George: Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: No it's a demonstration of their belief that behaviors don't define the person

Right, a cop out. "Gay people are cool with us as long as they don't, you know, do anything gay."

Gee golly, what a deal for gays! How generous of the religious to allow gays to exist in our modern society as long as they conform to the rules that please the religious. See gays, what's the problem? Be gay, just don't, be gay. See, we're not bigots! We good? We good.

The vacuous arguments Christian apologists come up with to justify their homophobic bigotry would be kind of amusing if they weren't so sad.


Where have I apologized for anything or assigned right or wrong to their beliefs?  I have merely tried to relay them as accurately as I understand them.

Although I do find it amusing that you cannot engage in the conversation with out screaming "H8ter!!!!".  And homophobic implies fear, I have never seen that.  It's another accusation that is intended to stifle conversation and force conformity of opinion.  Either that or it's another demonstration of the point I made above about you not understanding them while screaming and crying that they don't understand you.
 
2014-07-15 07:08:50 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: I have heard pedophiles make that same argument

Ah, there it is. Bigot go-to #48. Let that bigot flag fly!


Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: To them it's merely a behavior and not a facet of one's personality.

Sure, but they're wrong. And, you know, bigots.


Is bigot the primary word in your vocabulary or is it just your go to when you got nothing?
 
2014-07-15 07:10:54 PM  

Callous: Is bigot the primary word in your vocabulary or is it just your go to when you got nothing?


I go to it when it's accurate.
 
2014-07-15 07:12:34 PM  

Duke_leto_Atredes: Danger Avoid Death: Gunny Highway: Magorn: Boerne SHOULD have been controlling in the Hobby Lobby case but wasn't so where we are now is anybody's guess

The backside of another dune.  Who knows what is on the other side.

[img.tfd.com image 600x338]

Sandworms. Lots and lots of sandworms. Wormsign even the likes of which even God has never seen.

well ok, they don't have to hire rug munchers and fudge packers, but they don't get any federal money either. Accreditation should be based solely on the academic program. stop forcing the homosexual agenda on every single group, organization and business. don't like them go else ware.


The ONE guy in this thread I would have expected some Dune banter from, and you have to go and lay that on us. Thanks.

Just for that:

media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com

Just because.
 
2014-07-15 07:13:42 PM  

Callous: Bawdy George: Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: No it's a demonstration of their belief that behaviors don't define the person

Right, a cop out. "Gay people are cool with us as long as they don't, you know, do anything gay."

Gee golly, what a deal for gays! How generous of the religious to allow gays to exist in our modern society as long as they conform to the rules that please the religious. See gays, what's the problem? Be gay, just don't, be gay. See, we're not bigots! We good? We good.

The vacuous arguments Christian apologists come up with to justify their homophobic bigotry would be kind of amusing if they weren't so sad.

Where have I apologized for anything or assigned right or wrong to their beliefs?  I have merely tried to relay them as accurately as I understand them.

Although I do find it amusing that you cannot engage in the conversation with out screaming "H8ter!!!!".  And homophobic implies fear, I have never seen that.  It's another accusation that is intended to stifle conversation and force conformity of opinion.  Either that or it's another demonstration of the point I made above about you not understanding them while screaming and crying that they don't understand you.


Guess what, champ? Not all ideas/opinions have equal grounding in reality, which you've demonstrated amply. And mockery != screaming and crying.

And "apologetics" doesn't mean apologizing. Not entirely surprising that you get that wrong as well
 
2014-07-15 07:24:24 PM  

Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: No it's a demonstration of their belief that behaviors don't define the person

Right, a cop out. "Gay people are cool with us as long as they don't, you know, do anything gay."

Gee golly, what a deal for gays! How generous of the religious to allow gays to exist in our modern society as long as they conform to the rules that please the religious. See gays, what's the problem? Be gay, just don't, be gay. See, we're not bigots! We good? We good.

The vacuous arguments Christian apologists come up with to justify their homophobic bigotry would be kind of amusing if they weren't so sad.

Where have I apologized for anything or assigned right or wrong to their beliefs?  I have merely tried to relay them as accurately as I understand them.

Although I do find it amusing that you cannot engage in the conversation with out screaming "H8ter!!!!".  And homophobic implies fear, I have never seen that.  It's another accusation that is intended to stifle conversation and force conformity of opinion.  Either that or it's another demonstration of the point I made above about you not understanding them while screaming and crying that they don't understand you.

Guess what, champ? Not all ideas/opinions have equal grounding in reality, which you've demonstrated amply. And mockery != screaming and crying.

And "apologetics" doesn't mean apologizing. Not entirely surprising that you get that wrong as well


I'm sorry where did I assign any credibility or grounding in reality to their beliefs?  Oh I didn't, you're just having an emotional reaction to something you disagree with and attacked the messenger.
 
2014-07-15 07:28:55 PM  

Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.


At least in some interpretation, especially when used as pagan fertility and harvest rights. It is however no where near the evil of wearing poly-cotton clothing and other monstrous acts.
 
2014-07-15 07:33:33 PM  
religions folks, what in the hell will they imagine next.
 
2014-07-15 07:33:45 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: I have heard pedophiles make that same argument

Ah, there it is. Bigot go-to #48. Let that bigot flag fly!


So UK academics and an Australian judge are bigots?
 
2014-07-15 07:43:04 PM  

dwrash: Why do people hate freedom of association so much and insist on forcing their beliefs on those that just wish to be left alone?


Because people like you and the college think freedom of association only applies to them and not the other members of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges who have their own right to determine what the standards are for those whom they wish to associate with or not.  You can't accuse the other members of forcing their beliefs on a college who just wishes to be left alone when that college demands that they keep their membership on conditions the other members object to on the basis of their consciences- that is doing to others exactly what you will not accept when done to you.
 
2014-07-15 07:43:28 PM  

Son of Thunder: So UK academics and an Australian judge are bigots?


So quick with the pedophilia research! Equating what two consenting ADULTS do to what an adult and a child who is unable to consent do is in fact a disgusting tactic used by bigots, yes.
 
2014-07-15 07:45:30 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Son of Thunder: So UK academics and an Australian judge are bigots?

So quick with the pedophilia research! Equating what two consenting ADULTS do to what an adult and a child who is unable to consent do is in fact a disgusting tactic used by bigots, yes.


So you didn't read the links then.
 
2014-07-15 07:46:40 PM  

Son of Thunder: So you didn't read the links then.


I somehow managed not to.
 
2014-07-15 07:50:19 PM  

Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: No it's a demonstration of their belief that behaviors don't define the person

Right, a cop out. "Gay people are cool with us as long as they don't, you know, do anything gay."

Gee golly, what a deal for gays! How generous of the religious to allow gays to exist in our modern society as long as they conform to the rules that please the religious. See gays, what's the problem? Be gay, just don't, be gay. See, we're not bigots! We good? We good.

The vacuous arguments Christian apologists come up with to justify their homophobic bigotry would be kind of amusing if they weren't so sad.

Where have I apologized for anything or assigned right or wrong to their beliefs?  I have merely tried to relay them as accurately as I understand them.

Although I do find it amusing that you cannot engage in the conversation with out screaming "H8ter!!!!".  And homophobic implies fear, I have never seen that.  It's another accusation that is intended to stifle conversation and force conformity of opinion.  Either that or it's another demonstration of the point I made above about you not understanding them while screaming and crying that they don't understand you.

Guess what, champ? Not all ideas/opinions have equal grounding in reality, which you've demonstrated amply. And mockery != screaming and crying.

And "apologetics" doesn't mean apologizing. Not entirely surprising that you get that wrong as well

I'm sorry where did I assign any credibility or grounding in reality to their beliefs?  Oh I didn't, you're just having an emotional reaction to something you disagree with and attacked the messenger.


i41.photobucket.com

I suppose when you utterly fail in defense of a deeply flawed viewpoint, it's convenient to bail and claim you're just the messenger.
 
2014-07-15 07:51:34 PM  

Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: No it's a demonstration of their belief that behaviors don't define the person

Right, a cop out. "Gay people are cool with us as long as they don't, you know, do anything gay."

Gee golly, what a deal for gays! How generous of the religious to allow gays to exist in our modern society as long as they conform to the rules that please the religious. See gays, what's the problem? Be gay, just don't, be gay. See, we're not bigots! We good? We good.

The vacuous arguments Christian apologists come up with to justify their homophobic bigotry would be kind of amusing if they weren't so sad.

Where have I apologized for anything or assigned right or wrong to their beliefs?  I have merely tried to relay them as accurately as I understand them.

Although I do find it amusing that you cannot engage in the conversation with out screaming "H8ter!!!!".  And homophobic implies fear, I have never seen that.  It's another accusation that is intended to stifle conversation and force conformity of opinion.  Either that or it's another demonstration of the point I made above about you not understanding them while screaming and crying that they don't understand you.

Guess what, champ? Not all ideas/opinions have equal grounding in reality, which you've demonstrated amply. And mockery != screaming and crying.

And "apologetics" doesn't mean apologizing. Not entirely surprising that you get that wrong as well

I'm sorry where did I assign any credibility or grounding in reality to their beliefs?  Oh I didn't, you're just having an emotional reaction to something you disagree with and attacked the messenger.

[i41.photobucket.com image 450x299]

I suppose when you utterly fail in defense of a deeply flawed viewpoint, it's convenient to bail and claim you're just the messenger.


Please demonstrate where I tried to defend it.
 
2014-07-15 07:51:42 PM  
I didn't know the point of accrediting a school was to push a political/moral point. I thought it was to ensure a certain academic threshold was met. I could be wrong, but it feels right, and that's all that matters.
 
2014-07-15 07:55:49 PM  

Magorn: ciberido: Magorn: what gets sticky is what constitutes an "exercise" of a religion?

[snip text]

Magorn:  Animal sacrifice in contravention of local animal cruelty laws?

ciberido: Nope.  Use a stuffed animal or something.  Maybe you can "transubstantiate" it into a real, alive animal just before you kill it.

Well of that list Wisconsin v Yoder.....

The peyote case is Smith dicussed above, and the animal sacrifice  issue came up in theChurch of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah \which came after smith but went 9-0 for the Santeria chicken killers


I can't remember the case name, but I seem to remember an animal sacrifice free exercise case from back in law school (which was much longer ago than I want to admit) that upheld a ban on burnt offerings of animal sacrifice pursuant to zoning ordinances where the plaintiff was a guy who had decided to return to Old Testament biblical holocaust practices.  Did Church  of Lukumi Babalu Aye v City of Hialeah overrule that earlier case?
 
2014-07-15 08:04:25 PM  
Callous:  Please demonstrate where I tried to defend it.

Callous:  No, it's the unrepentant part of it.  If you are living as an open homosexual or continue to engage in the behavior you're an unrepentant sinner.  An alcoholic who continues to drink is an unrepentant sinner as well.  While a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks is a repentant sinner.  Therefore a homosexual who renounces homosexuality and no longer engages in the behavior would be a repentant sinner.

You can replace homosexuality or alcoholism with just about any sin.  The line is drawn at whether or not you are actively engaging in that sin without any intention of stopping or remorse.


Nope, totally not defending Christian bigotry. At least you didn't try to deny your utter failure.
 
2014-07-15 08:33:21 PM  

Bawdy George: Callous:  Please demonstrate where I tried to defend it.

Callous:  No, it's the unrepentant part of it.  If you are living as an open homosexual or continue to engage in the behavior you're an unrepentant sinner.  An alcoholic who continues to drink is an unrepentant sinner as well.  While a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks is a repentant sinner.  Therefore a homosexual who renounces homosexuality and no longer engages in the behavior would be a repentant sinner.

You can replace homosexuality or alcoholism with just about any sin.  The line is drawn at whether or not you are actively engaging in that sin without any intention of stopping or remorse.

Nope, totally not defending Christian bigotry. At least you didn't try to deny your utter failure.


Defining how their beliefs work is not defending it.  I was merely trying to give people the facts about how Christian beliefs are formed, right wrong or indifferent.  You apparently can't handle that and had an emotional meltdown and started calling me names.
 
2014-07-15 08:37:15 PM  
Just pointing this out: Gordon College has operated in a state with marriage equality for a decade and their god hasn't done anything about it.

Maybe their god doesn't care?
 
2014-07-15 08:47:23 PM  

Callous: Bawdy George: Callous:  Please demonstrate where I tried to defend it.

Callous:  No, it's the unrepentant part of it.  If you are living as an open homosexual or continue to engage in the behavior you're an unrepentant sinner.  An alcoholic who continues to drink is an unrepentant sinner as well.  While a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks is a repentant sinner.  Therefore a homosexual who renounces homosexuality and no longer engages in the behavior would be a repentant sinner.

You can replace homosexuality or alcoholism with just about any sin.  The line is drawn at whether or not you are actively engaging in that sin without any intention of stopping or remorse.

Nope, totally not defending Christian bigotry. At least you didn't try to deny your utter failure.

Defining how their beliefs work is not defending it.  I was merely trying to give people the facts about how Christian beliefs are formed, right wrong or indifferent.  You apparently can't handle that and had an emotional meltdown and started calling me names.


AKA the "some people say..." technique
 
2014-07-15 08:57:53 PM  

Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous:  Please demonstrate where I tried to defend it.

Callous:  No, it's the unrepentant part of it.  If you are living as an open homosexual or continue to engage in the behavior you're an unrepentant sinner.  An alcoholic who continues to drink is an unrepentant sinner as well.  While a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks is a repentant sinner.  Therefore a homosexual who renounces homosexuality and no longer engages in the behavior would be a repentant sinner.

You can replace homosexuality or alcoholism with just about any sin.  The line is drawn at whether or not you are actively engaging in that sin without any intention of stopping or remorse.

Nope, totally not defending Christian bigotry. At least you didn't try to deny your utter failure.

Defining how their beliefs work is not defending it.  I was merely trying to give people the facts about how Christian beliefs are formed, right wrong or indifferent.  You apparently can't handle that and had an emotional meltdown and started calling me names.

AKA the "some people say..." technique


Now you're just flailing.
 
2014-07-15 09:13:42 PM  
I'm not really sure why everyone is surprised that people who believe in God would choose to put God's commands ahead of modern 21st century morals.  People who twist their religion around to make it fit with modern sensibilities are not in line with the actual requirements of those religions (the rules aren't "suggestions").  According to those rules, they aren't really believers at all and will be heading to Hell for their arrogance. 

God is the one these Christian college people are worried about pleasing.  Everything besides God is petty and vain by comparison.  By necessity.  Considering America is a "Christian Country" it shows a considerable lack of tolerance for people who try to obey the scriptures.  I guess that makes sense when you think about it, though.  To most Americans their religion is like an accessory they can put on or take off when it's convenient.  Few people have bothered to read or try to understand the Bible and yet have the audacity to assume they are going to Heaven when their entire life is spent making mistakes. 

The blind are giving directions to the sighted with all this Political Correctness, yet they are not seen as the ones making mistakes.  Perhaps it would be better for America to identify as an atheist country, because it is not believers who are guiding its choices.  Drop the facade.
 
2014-07-15 09:26:21 PM  
Liberals are racists, news at 11:00
 
2014-07-15 09:45:26 PM  

Callous: I was merely trying to give people the facts


What DO you believe?
 
2014-07-15 09:54:04 PM  

Dr Dreidel: APO_Buddha: FTFY
Liberty is actually a regionally accredited (SCACS) university. Bob Jones are the people that give you a piece of paper that has the same value as a used Wendy's napkin.

Not for nothing, but SCACS is the "RANDPAUL License" of accreditation - The South Carolina Association of Christian Schools.

So while you're technically correct, it's not like a credential issued by Liberty is much better. if you're part of the crowd, the name of the institution matters more than any accreditation. If you're not hip to the jive, Liberty might as well have Klingon accreditation.

// last month, I learned Liberty U is not too far from Floyd, VA (hippieville)


SCACS isn't listed in the CHEA db - therefore it's an unaccredited accrediting agency. Sux to be them.
http://www.chea.org/Directories/index.asp
 
2014-07-15 10:06:55 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Callous: I was merely trying to give people the facts

What DO you believe?


I believe that it is an integral part of their personality and not simply a chosen behavior.

I never said I agreed with Christians who think it's a choice. But I have debated it enough with many of them that I do understand their views/beliefs on it.

Oh and I am a Christian, I just don't follow the herd. And I'm not the only one. But there's not very many of us from what I have observed.

I can tell you that even if there was some kind of indesputable proof that it's not a choice many would not accept it and many more would still say "God says it's bad so you still shouldn't do it".

The one question the people who hold it as some kind of mortal sun can't answer is, if it's such a huge deal why didn't Christ address it directly?
 
2014-07-15 10:10:07 PM  

Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Callous: I was merely trying to give people the facts

What DO you believe?

I believe that it is an integral part of their personality and not simply a chosen behavior.

I never said I agreed with Christians who think it's a choice. But I have debated it enough with many of them that I do understand their views/beliefs on it.

Oh and I am a Christian, I just don't follow the herd. And I'm not the only one. But there's not very many of us from what I have observed.

I can tell you that even if there was some kind of indesputable proof that it's not a choice many would not accept it and many more would still say "God says it's bad so you still shouldn't do it".

The one question the people who hold it as some kind of mortal sun can't answer is, if it's such a huge deal why didn't Christ address it directly?


Thank you.
 
2014-07-15 10:16:52 PM  

Boojum2k: serial_crusher: Boojum2k: Cyclometh: serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Nope. They should take all relevant factors into account and discriminatory hiring policies are very much relevant.

This. The only concern anyone should have in hiring is "can this person do the job reliably and well?" What consenting adults do on their own time isn't anyone else's business, even if they talk about it at work.

So, "does this person have an accredited degree" is no longer a valid check to answer that question?

An accredited degree is a way of identifying someone as being able to do certain jobs, so in those cases it certainly still is a valid check. Not sure what this has to do with discrimination against LGBT people though.


Well, the connection really shouldn't need to be spelled out.
You said that "all relevant factors" should be taken into account.  If a school's accreditation can be rejected based on their hiring policies rather than the quality of the education they provide, the accreditatedness of an applicant's degree stops being relevant.  People who are perfectly qualified to do a particular job aren't being properly labeled because of a political debate.  The whole accreditation board becomes moot with this kind of behavior.

In the long run it would put pressure on the school to change their policies, so that's good.  But I would hate to be a Junior there right now.

/ Maybe the health inspector should shut down their dorm cafeterias over this.  Police and fire department should refuse to operate on their campus as well.  Then they'll learn not to be bigots!
 
2014-07-15 10:24:18 PM  

serial_crusher: In the long run it would put pressure on the school to change their policies, so that's good. But I would hate to be a Junior there right now.


Fair enough. While many of their students probably support their stance, I'm sure not all of them do and it is remarkably unfair to punish them for the failures of the school.
 
2014-07-15 10:40:12 PM  

Pattuq: I'm not really sure why everyone is surprised that people who believe in God would choose to put God's commands ahead of modern 21st century morals.  People who twist their religion around to make it fit with modern sensibilities are not in line with the actual requirements of those religions (the rules aren't "suggestions").  According to those rules, they aren't really believers at all and will be heading to Hell for their arrogance. 

God is the one these Christian college people are worried about pleasing.  Everything besides God is petty and vain by comparison.  By necessity.  Considering America is a "Christian Country" it shows a considerable lack of tolerance for people who try to obey the scriptures.  I guess that makes sense when you think about it, though.  To most Americans their religion is like an accessory they can put on or take off when it's convenient.  Few people have bothered to read or try to understand the Bible and yet have the audacity to assume they are going to Heaven when their entire life is spent making mistakes. 

The blind are giving directions to the sighted with all this Political Correctness, yet they are not seen as the ones making mistakes.  Perhaps it would be better for America to identify as an atheist country, because it is not believers who are guiding its choices.  Drop the facade.


I'm not surprised that people who believe in any god(s) chose to follow their god(s)' commandss and follow them instead of what they see as "21st century morals" whether they are Christian or any other theistic tradition.[I have to admit the "21st century morals" reference confused me in light of God's transcendence of time in Christian teaching so Christian morals are of and for all centuries, including this one- but now understand you to mean "morals created by modern man"]  As for the rest of your assertions, your right to believe in your understanding of whatever the rules are is absolutely protected by the First Amendment (which is as close to an absolute right as you will find in the Constitution, since as Thomas Jefferson stated "(your) belief neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket" and doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights as other constitutionally protected rights often do at the margins)

Your right to hold a religious belief that the USA is a "Christian Country" does not however make it so as a matter of fact.  The historical record is clear that the delegates of the Constitutional Convention were aware of the existence of Established Churches, (several colonies had them and that the nations of Europe that the delegates or their immediate ancestors came from had Established Churches from a number of religious sects.)  The wars and persecutions that those Established Churches engendered in Europe was a matter of common historical knowledge of the educated men who were delegates.  Precisely because of that awareness of the evils committed in the name of religion when backed by the power of the State and  Enlightenment philosophy that followed them, the delegates made a conscious decision to reject mixing the metaphysical power of religion and conscience, with the physical power of government.  Therefore they chose not to create a Christian Country or a country committed to upholding a religion or sect of any kind, and forbidding any religious test for participation in the governance of the country or for the rights of citizens of the USA.  Tolerating Christian religion is not the same as compelling others to abide by someone else's conception of it, nor is it intolerant to refuse to grant Christian religion (or any other for that matter) any preference or pre-eminence.  The religious matters I leave to you, since by education and experience I can to speak to the law as it concerns the Constitution as one certified as "learned in the law" to use the arcane phrase and I can assure you that your claim that the USA is a Christian Country is in error and that freedom of religion by one person does mean a grant of preference over that of any other person that you claim "tolerance" requires.
 
2014-07-15 10:56:22 PM  

serial_crusher: Boojum2k: serial_crusher: Boojum2k: Cyclometh: serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Nope. They should take all relevant factors into account and discriminatory hiring policies are very much relevant.

This. The only concern anyone should have in hiring is "can this person do the job reliably and well?" What consenting adults do on their own time isn't anyone else's business, even if they talk about it at work.

So, "does this person have an accredited degree" is no longer a valid check to answer that question?

An accredited degree is a way of identifying someone as being able to do certain jobs, so in those cases it certainly still is a valid check. Not sure what this has to do with discrimination against LGBT people though.

Well, the connection really shouldn't need to be spelled out.
You said that "all relevant factors" should be taken into account.  If a school's accreditation can be rejected based on their hiring policies rather than the quality of the education they provide, the accreditatedness of an applicant's degree stops being relevant.  People who are perfectly qualified to do a particular job aren't being properly labeled because of a political debate.  The whole accreditation board becomes moot with this kind of behavior.

In the long run it would put pressure on the school to change their policies, so that's good.  But I would hate to be a Junior there right now.

/ Maybe the health inspector should shut down their dorm cafeterias over this.  Police and fire department should refuse to operate on their campus as well.  Then they'll learn not to be bigots!


A central element of higher education in a pluralistic society like the USA has been (often in fact but always at least in theory) that it should include exposure to a wider world of ideas, people and values than what the student brings to the institution and to promote the student's ability to respect, learn from, and collaborate with, people whose ideas, culture and values may differ from theirs. Faculty must have those skills to be qualified to teach in higher education founded on that central element irrespective of their knowledge and skills concerning their subject matter. That's not a matter of partisan political debate, or religious debate etc., nor do you have to adopt or even approve of everyone of those people, cultures or ideas you are expected to be exposed to, but it is fair and appropriate to demand that your students aren't ignorant of those things if your institution desires accreditation.
 
2014-07-15 11:15:37 PM  

This text is now purple: flondrix: Has there ever been a breakaway sect of Christianity that regards St. Paul as some jerk who came along after Jesus had died, resurrected, and ascended and hijacked the religion?

The gnostics.


They advocated total sexual abstinence (according to Wiki) and so would have been right in line with St. Paul, at least as far as sex is concerned.
 
2014-07-15 11:21:51 PM  

Callous: I can tell you that even if there was some kind of indesputable proof that it's not a choice many would not accept it and many more would still say "God says it's bad so you still shouldn't do it".


Some Christians have said that if homosexuality really were genetic, and there were a test for it, that would be the only case in which abortion should be permitted.
 
2014-07-15 11:31:00 PM  

Callous: ciberido: Callous: And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

Here's the thing.  We don't really CARE whether you hate us or not.  We care what you do to us.  You can hate, hate, hate your neighbor across the street for his black skin, or love, love, love him because you think he's the bee's knees.  Doesn't matter.  What does matter is whether you burn a cross on his lawn, or slash his tires.  If you do, then you are an asshole and you need to be stopped.

And when the police come to arrest you for setting his house on fire, you crying, "There is no hate or malice involved!  Some of my best friends are black!" isn't going to matter.  You're still a farking arsonist, and you still are going to rot in jail.

Then why is "NO H8TE!!!!!!" the rallying cry to oppose any anti-gay laws?  If you don't care, why is it the cornerstone of your whole argument against those laws?


Because "hate" is a convenient shorthand for the crap you guys do.  All of your actions are consistent with hatred, regardless of whether or not that's what you really feel in your hearts.  Whether or not they are actually motivated by hatred, your words and actions are hateful in nature.
 
2014-07-15 11:32:24 PM  

Callous: ciberido: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...:  When they're family or friends, I try to help them reduce the (secular) damage to their own lives. If they want to change, I support them in that. (How to change being a felon doesn't make sense, but it does on the first two.) Their souls aren't mine to judge.

So if they wish to continue being a serial killer or child rapist you are okay with that because who are you to judge?

If you cannot grasp the difference between something two consenting adults do together and something a criminal inflicts upon an unwilling victim, then you are not fit to participate in this conversation.

You are the one that said you didn't believe in sin.


Uh, no.
 
2014-07-15 11:55:40 PM  

Callous: Telling someone that wrong behavior is wrong does not imply that someone is less human.  Most Christians do not believe that homosexuality is a facet of one's personality and therefore is merely another wrong behavior to be discontinued.


From a scientific point of view, this is demonstrably wrong, much like belief that the world was literally created in six days only a few thousand years ago.

You are free to believe that God made Adam from dust and Eve from his rib.  I respect your religious beliefs, whether or not I share all of them.  You are also more than welcome to teach about Adam and Eve in Sunday school.  When you try to influence what public schools teach about evolution, however, then we have a problem, because you're trying to base public policy on your unscientific beliefs.

The same applies to homosexuality.  You can BELIEVE whatever you like about it.  But when it comes to public policy, such as hiring or firing professors at a university which accepts public funds, then you trying to set policy by unscientific religious beliefs is a problem.

Basing public policy on the fallacy (again, from a scientific standpoint) that homosexuality is a choice is just as wrong (and contrary to participating in a pluralistic civil society) as trying to force public schools to teach Biblical creation.

/And all of this is merely by-the-by because homosexuality isn't something that should be punished or discriminated against, even if it WERE a choice.
 
2014-07-15 11:56:19 PM  

patrick767: Callous:
And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

Hate may be too strong of a word for many people. On the other hand I call bullshiat on most of the anti-gay Christians who claim to love gay people. They love to spout "hate the sin, love the sinner", but in many Christians' attitudes toward and treatment of gay people, I don't see anything resembling love. Actions count a hell of a lot more than words. Besides, who can love someone without accepting them? Who we choose to love is an integral part of who we are as a person. If we can't accept that aspect of someone's life, then I think it's bullshiat to claim we love them.


To be, "love the sinner but not the sin" would mean to actually hire them. Hiring them doesn't mean you condone what they do in the bedroom.

These assholes really make it hard for me to be a Christian.
 
2014-07-16 12:07:41 AM  

ciberido: Callous: Telling someone that wrong behavior is wrong does not imply that someone is less human.  Most Christians do not believe that homosexuality is a facet of one's personality and therefore is merely another wrong behavior to be discontinued.

From a scientific point of view, this is demonstrably wrong, much like belief that the world was literally created in six days only a few thousand years ago.

You are free to believe that God made Adam from dust and Eve from his rib.  I respect your religious beliefs, whether or not I share all of them.  You are also more than welcome to teach about Adam and Eve in Sunday school.  When you try to influence what public schools teach about evolution, however, then we have a problem, because you're trying to base public policy on your unscientific beliefs.

The same applies to homosexuality.  You can BELIEVE whatever you like about it.  But when it comes to public policy, such as hiring or firing professors at a university which accepts public funds, then you trying to set policy by unscientific religious beliefs is a problem.

Basing public policy on the fallacy (again, from a scientific standpoint) that homosexuality is a choice is just as wrong (and contrary to participating in a pluralistic civil society) as trying to force public schools to teach Biblical creation.

/And all of this is merely by-the-by because homosexuality isn't something that should be punished or discriminated against, even if it WERE a choice.


If you had read the rest of my posts you would know that you are preaching to the choir. But as several others you read what I explained, assumed it was also my beliefs and attacked me for it.
 
2014-07-16 12:31:50 AM  

Callous: patrick767: You don't have to accept absolutely everything someone does, but I'd argue that you do have to accept who they are as a person in order to love them. Sexuality is an incredibly important aspect of our lives.

I have heard pedophiles make that same argument but I'm at work so I'm not going to look up or link ...


And Hitler was a vegetarian.
 
2014-07-16 12:38:21 AM  

Callous: Not a cop out.  To them it's merely a behavior and not a facet of one's personality.  So not engaging in homosexual behavior is no different than not taking another drink.


And as pointed out, this is objectively incorrect.  So it's not an excuse for anything.
 
2014-07-16 12:39:16 AM  

Graffito: Callous: Bawdy George: So misunderstanding = hate?


No, but telling someone that an innate, fundamental aspect of their identity is an offense against God = hate. As much as Christians would like to avoid admitting it. Oh, wait, I forgot - "love the sinner, hate the sin" makes it all better!

Right?

When you don't believe it's an aspect of their identity anymore than being an alcoholic would be, than no it's not.

Is that like how Hobby Lobby believes that IUDs are abortiofacients despite what the Am. College of OB/GYN says?


Very much so, yes.
 
2014-07-16 12:43:57 AM  

ciberido: Callous: Not a cop out.  To them it's merely a behavior and not a facet of one's personality.  So not engaging in homosexual behavior is no different than not taking another drink.

And as pointed out, this is objectively incorrect.  So it's not an excuse for anything.


You really need to read the whole thread before responding to random posts.
 
2014-07-16 01:23:08 AM  

Callous: ciberido: Callous: Not a cop out.  To them it's merely a behavior and not a facet of one's personality.  So not engaging in homosexual behavior is no different than not taking another drink.

And as pointed out, this is objectively incorrect.  So it's not an excuse for anything.

You really need to read the whole thread before responding to random posts.


No, I really don't.
 
2014-07-16 01:27:03 AM  

Danger Avoid Death: Duke_leto_Atredes: Danger Avoid Death: Gunny Highway: Magorn: Boerne SHOULD have been controlling in the Hobby Lobby case but wasn't so where we are now is anybody's guess

The backside of another dune.  Who knows what is on the other side.

[img.tfd.com image 600x338]

Sandworms. Lots and lots of sandworms. Wormsign even the likes of which even God has never seen.

well ok, they don't have to hire rug munchers and fudge packers, but they don't get any federal money either. Accreditation should be based solely on the academic program. stop forcing the homosexual agenda on every single group, organization and business. don't like them go else ware.

The ONE guy in this thread I would have expected some Dune banter from, and you have to go and lay that on us. Thanks.


He should have gone with "Baron Vladimir Harkonnen" as his Fark Handle.
 
2014-07-16 01:43:43 AM  

Pattuq: Perhaps it would be better for America to identify as an atheist country, because it is not believers who are guiding its choices.  Drop the facade.


"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ...."


How about YOU assholes drop the façade.
 
2014-07-16 02:12:39 AM  

ciberido: Callous: ciberido: Callous: Not a cop out.  To them it's merely a behavior and not a facet of one's personality.  So not engaging in homosexual behavior is no different than not taking another drink.

And as pointed out, this is objectively incorrect.  So it's not an excuse for anything.

You really need to read the whole thread before responding to random posts.

No, I really don't.


Ok, fine look like an idiot.  I don't really care.
 
2014-07-16 02:35:37 AM  

Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.


Nope. They justify their bigotry by claiming that I am an abomination before their God. That's me. You think I am an abomination before the God you claim is all love, then you hate me. It's okay. I am in good company.
 
2014-07-16 02:46:17 AM  

This text is now purple: qorkfiend: This can't be true. I was informed that the HL decision would never, ever, under any circumstances, be cited in an attempt to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

You were told no such thing. You were told those lawsuits would not win.

\you can indict a ham sandwich


You can find a stack of money guilty of breaking the law. Then you can buy military surplus items with that money, apparently intending one day to use those material on unarmed civilians in your own country.

You can claim that a dime store that explicity sells timewasting trinkets has religious beliefs that trump the medical needs of actual humans.

You can claim that a multinational corporation has the right of free speech.
 
2014-07-16 02:54:36 AM  
Would someone please explain how "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is in any way different from "Don't hate the ni&&er, hate his black skin?"
 
2014-07-16 02:56:06 AM  

highwayrun: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

Nope. They justify their bigotry by claiming that I am an abomination before their God. That's me. You think I am an abomination before the God you claim is all love, then you hate me. It's okay. I am in good company.


Explained it before, it's the behavior, not the people.  And I'm not going to go around again about how they don't get that it's not chosen behavior.

You should really endeavor to understand what you are accusing them of before you do it.  They don't hate you.  They don't understand you.
 
2014-07-16 03:06:03 AM  

highwayrun: Would someone please explain how "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is in any way different from "Don't hate the ni&&er, hate his black skin?"


They believe that homosexuality is an elective behavior and not an unchangeable facet of one's personality.
 
2014-07-16 03:27:25 AM  

Callous: highwayrun: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

Nope. They justify their bigotry by claiming that I am an abomination before their God. That's me. You think I am an abomination before the God you claim is all love, then you hate me. It's okay. I am in good company.

Explained it before, it's the behavior, not the people.  And I'm not going to go around again about how they don't get that it's not chosen behavior.

You should really endeavor to understand what you are accusing them of before you do it.  They don't hate you.  They don't understand you.


By this logic, being savagely beaten by a retarded man shouldn't hurt at all since he does it from a place of ignorance and not hate.

I have been on the receiving end of that cudgel and from the ground it is indistinguishable from hate, done under the auspices of an all-loving God.
 
2014-07-16 03:36:23 AM  

Callous: highwayrun: Would someone please explain how "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is in any way different from "Don't hate the ni&&er, hate his black skin?"

They believe that homosexuality is an elective behavior and not an unchangeable facet of one's personality.


I asked for an explanation and I got a clear and succinct one. Thank you.

Their willful ignorance does not obligate me to tolerate their actively hateful behavior.
 
2014-07-16 10:35:29 AM  

Callous: highwayrun: Would someone please explain how "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is in any way different from "Don't hate the ni&&er, hate his black skin?"

They believe that homosexuality is an elective behavior and not an unchangeable facet of one's personality.


Their lack of touch with reality is not anyone else's problem but their own... And, it doesn't change the fact that what they're doing still amounts to hate, even if they're delusional enough to believe otherwise... Not being self-aware enough to recognize the hate within oneself just makes it all the worse, not better in any way...
 
2014-07-16 11:05:23 AM  

Callous: highwayrun: Would someone please explain how "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is in any way different from "Don't hate the ni&&er, hate his black skin?"

They believe that homosexuality is an elective behavior and not an unchangeable facet of one's personality.


Well, it is an "elective behavior", as in the behavior part is elective.
At least in theory those guys don't mind that you want to have gay man sex, they just expect you to keep it in your pants.  Same as you might be naturally tempted towards other "sinful" behaviors and be expected to refrain.  I'm tempted to punch my boss in the face all the time, but I don't.

It's well and good to debate whether or not somebody should refrain from engaging in a behavior that isn't hurting anyone, and whether or not it's any of your business; but you're out of "sinner vs sin" territory and into "is it a sin or not" territory.

See, the n-word literally can't change his black skin, but a gay person can keep it suppressed and deal with all the emotional issues like a man, or something.  It's fair to say there's a difference between those two arguments, even if they're both bad arguments for different reasons.
 
2014-07-16 11:17:32 AM  

serial_crusher: See, the n-word literally can't change his black skin


You've never heard of Michael Jackson?
 
2014-07-16 11:37:53 AM  

highwayrun: You can claim that a multinational corporation has the right of free speech.


That is an angle I hadn't thought of before--even if we are forced to consider corporations to be people with rights, can't we at least say that some of them are not American citizens, have no right to participate in American politics, and are subject to deportation?
 
2014-07-16 11:46:52 AM  

stan unusual: A central element of higher education in a pluralistic society like the USA has been (often in fact but always at least in theory) that it should include exposure to a wider world of ideas, people and values than what the student brings to the institution and to promote the student's ability to respect, learn from, and collaborate with, people whose ideas, culture and values may differ from theirs. Faculty must have those skills to be qualified to teach in higher education founded on that central element irrespective of their knowledge and skills concerning their subject matter. That's not a matter of partisan political debate, or religious debate etc., nor do you have to adopt or even approve of everyone of those people, cultures or ideas you are expected to be exposed to, but it is fair and appropriate to demand that your students aren't ignorant of those things if your institution desires accreditation.


I've always disagreed with that being a necessary goal of higher education.  Surely there's a way to experience diversity and learn to get along with people in a way that doesn't cost $12,000 a semester.  If I'm paying for an engineering degree, I expect to stay on task and learn me some engineering.
Really it's a good thing for everybody in society to learn, not just the college-bound.  You can't really get that in high school due to the rampant immaturity.  I've always kind of been in favor of a mandatory military/civil service period for 1 or 2 years after high school, like they do in Switzerland.  Maybe that would work?
 
2014-07-16 11:56:49 AM  

serial_crusher: Well, it is an "elective behavior", as in the behavior part is elective.


Despite my flippant Michael Jackson reply above, perhaps a more accurate analogy would instead be to left-handed people (who were also once discriminated against and treated as sinful and wrong)... "I love left-handed people! I just hate the awful sin of writing with one's left hand! If only those silly lefties would learn to totally suppress their innate natures and force themselves to use their non-dominant hand, I wouldn't have to keep treating them as evil, subhuman filth!"

But, it can work with the race analogy, as well... Some racists claim not to hate black people for their skin color, but because they "act black"... If they can learn to "act white" instead, they have no problem with them!
 
2014-07-16 12:22:54 PM  
My favorite part: We offer students extraordinary access to leading-edge opportunities for intellectual, professional, and leadership development to address the increasingly complex challenges of a global society.

Do they not understand that our "global society" includes gay people?
 
2014-07-16 12:25:21 PM  

Callous: They believe that homosexuality is an elective behavior and not an unchangeable facet of one's personality.


And they're completely wrong about that.  They shouldn't be able to use incorrect/archaic beliefs to avoid federal anti-discrimination law.
 
2014-07-16 12:29:28 PM  

Callous: patrick767: Callous:
And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

Hate may be too strong of a word for many people. On the other hand I call bullshiat on most of the anti-gay Christians who claim to love gay people. They love to spout "hate the sin, love the sinner", but in many Christians' attitudes toward and treatment of gay people, I don't see anything resembling love. Actions count a hell of a lot more than words. Besides, who can love someone without accepting them? Who we choose to love is an integral part of who we are as a person. If we can't accept that aspect of someone's life, then I think it's bullshiat to claim we love them.

Do you hate alcoholics?  How about drug addicts?  Any of your friends or relatives have a criminal record?

You can object to the behavior and not hate the person.  Love doesn't require accepting everything about someone.  Why is it so black or white with you?


10/10
 
2014-07-16 06:59:25 PM  

RobSeace: Callous: highwayrun: Would someone please explain how "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is in any way different from "Don't hate the ni&&er, hate his black skin?"

They believe that homosexuality is an elective behavior and not an unchangeable facet of one's personality.

Their lack of touch with reality is not anyone else's problem but their own... And, it doesn't change the fact that what they're doing still amounts to hate, even if they're delusional enough to believe otherwise... Not being self-aware enough to recognize the hate within oneself just makes it all the worse, not better in any way...


But it also means that, ideally, the long term solution is to try to fix their break with reality.

To a completely rational and enlightened person, it doesn't matter at all whether homosexuality is an innate characteristic or a personal choice.  All the time and effort spent arguing about the biology of homosexuality is for the benefit of those whose (as you put it) lack of touch with reality is causing them to persecute gay folks.

It would be as if you had a patient who believed that redheads were aliens from another planet.  Of course you can just laugh it off and ignore him.  But if he's actually going around attacking redheads, then it becomes worthwhile trying to understand where his delusion is coming from, in an effort to cure it.

We understand that some homophobes are going to be homophobes no matter how much science and education you throw at them.  But there are always going to be some who can be reached.
 
2014-07-16 07:03:20 PM  

RobSeace: serial_crusher: Well, it is an "elective behavior", as in the behavior part is elective.

Despite my flippant Michael Jackson reply above, perhaps a more accurate analogy would instead be to left-handed people (who were also once discriminated against and treated as sinful and wrong)... "I love left-handed people! I just hate the awful sin of writing with one's left hand! If only those silly lefties would learn to totally suppress their innate natures and force themselves to use their non-dominant hand, I wouldn't have to keep treating them as evil, subhuman filth!"


I quite like the comparison to  left-handedness.  I may steal it.
 
2014-07-16 10:05:09 PM  

ciberido: RobSeace: serial_crusher: Well, it is an "elective behavior", as in the behavior part is elective.

Despite my flippant Michael Jackson reply above, perhaps a more accurate analogy would instead be to left-handed people (who were also once discriminated against and treated as sinful and wrong)... "I love left-handed people! I just hate the awful sin of writing with one's left hand! If only those silly lefties would learn to totally suppress their innate natures and force themselves to use their non-dominant hand, I wouldn't have to keep treating them as evil, subhuman filth!"

I quite like the comparison to  left-handedness.  I may steal it.


I'm gay and left-handed.
 
Displayed 253 of 253 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report